Hacker News Reader

Comment by jedberg | Hacker News Reader

> Whatever you do, do it as a ceremony. ... Yes, it takes us three times longer than it used to, but we’re not in a hurry

We do this too, but we also often acknowledge, in front of the kids, that we have a lot of privilege to be able to do this. I want to make sure they know that poor people don't have the time to do what we do, because I already see signs of them asking "why don't homeless people just get jobs" and "did you know [classmate] has never been on a cruise before!!". I answer those questions too but I'm hoping to change their world view so they don't have to ask because they already know.

View on HN

I remember when I was a kid and I went to a friend’s birthday party, a Warriors game. His Dad was general partner of a VC firm, owned part of the Warriors and we had a center box with a buffet and everything. The mascot came to hang out with us, and much later some team members

Obviously I had no idea what was going on. I went home to my parents very middle class home and promptly told my own Dad I wanted to take my 4th grade girlfriend to a Warriors game with box seats and a limo! How funny looking back.

If anyone ever asks me what 'new money' means...

this isn't the distiction you're hoping it is.

And to think that you had a girlfriend in 4th grade. How very privileged :)

> "why don't homeless people just get jobs"

This is a fair question to ask, though. Why don’t they just get jobs? What are the structural issues in society that lead to this? Why are some people chronically homeless while the average length of homelessness (for those experiencing it) is “just” around 150 days? Why is getting a job not the solution for many? Why are there even people with jobs who are homeless?

That’s a wonderful (and important) discussion to have!

There are entire fields of research devoted to the question “Why don’t people just pull themselves up by their bootstraps? What is preventing that?”. It’s a great question that everyone should take time to think about imo.

edit: this gets even more interesting when you expand beyond USA. Why are there homeless people in countries with full safety nets? When someone can collect unemployment or disability that is meant to cover basic needs, why are they on the streets and asking passersby for handouts?

drugs.

edit: i'm serious. do you guys know any drug addicts? you lose your ability to make a plan.

Partly, yes. Partly it's a coping mechanism for being homeless, because they have no money and useful social connections, or the know-how to get out of it. In other words drugs being a symptom of homelessness, not necessarily a cause.

Regardless of the extent of drugs' blame, I'm skeptical of any solution to homelessness that entails just putting them in a cubicle, "no strings", and declaring them no longer homeless. Yes it can be a useful mechanism, but there's more work to do beyond that, it's admission that there's more to fighting homelessness than shoving people in free apartments.

I'm more curious as to why there's not an equivalent grassroots leftist sentiment for getting them jobs, as though that were somehow undignified. But notwithstanding the sometimes distorted incentives, maybe that's the actual hard part - holding down a job, and getting one that pays enough to make rent. Jobs can give us a sense of meaning, but if validation and social needs are being replaced by a similar proxy among the homeless, then maybe motivation is stifled - on top of the general fatigue that comes from it.

> I'm skeptical of any solution to homelessness that entails just putting them in a cubicle, "no strings", and declaring them no longer homeless. Yes it can be a useful mechanism, but there's more work to do beyond that,

For many people, there is, and they're capable of doing that work themselves once they're relieved from other pressures (like day-to-day survival). We all probably know someone that isn't enough for, but why not start with the lowest-cost interventions?

> maybe that's the actual hard part - holding down a job, and getting one that pays enough to make rent.

That's a hard thing for anyone – though within most people's ability. (Ignoring, for the moment, the question of whether people should be obliged to in order to continue living.) Having a place to live makes both getting and holding a job much easier.

> like day-to-day survival

Getting their square meals every day isn't the challenge for them. Even the meth tweakers eat.

> why not start with the lowest-cost interventions?

I don't think housing is the lowest-cost intervention

> Ignoring, for the moment, the question of whether people should be obliged to in order to continue living

No one is obliged to in the Western world, such is the safety net.

My understanding is that where “housing first” has been tried, it makes it very much easier to start dealing with the other issues around mental health and getting jobs.

Housing without drug addiction or mental house services doesn’t end well for the housing, which is why housing costs are around $10k/month/person in many of these programs (at least in the Seattle area). You have to put asides funds for services and rehabbing the housing every year.

In addition, my pet theory is that if society _really_ wanted to help poor black communities (as an example) they would start, not by throwing money at the school, but by throwing money at the _community_ around the school. "throwing money" is a short-hand here, but working to provide services so the _parents_ aren't stressed and are a part of the school success.

For real, there's an element of environmental determinism. But the homeless aren't just products of microcultures of poverty.

So your argument here is that someone didn't have the money for housing and the coping mechanism the non-drug addict chose is to start doing drugs?

Typed out that way, does that still make sense in your head?

This is not your typical chick-and-egg type problem. Those who are not addicted to something tend to be off the street relatively quickly. It's those with pre-existing problems that don't, such as drugs, mental instability, etc.

The over-representation of certain demographics amongst the homeless tells you full-stop this is true, such as war veterans.

> So your argument here is that someone didn't have the money for housing and the coping mechanism the non-drug addict chose is to start doing drugs?

Correct. Not overnight.

> Typed out that way, does that still make sense in your head?

Yes. It's not hard to get exposed in those circles.

> Those who are not addicted to something tend to be off the street relatively quickly.

Citation needed.

> It's those with pre-existing problems that don't, such as drugs, mental instability, etc.

Mental instability is self-medicated with drugs.

> Mental instability is self-medicated with drugs.

I'm guessing you've never seen directly or by proxy what happens when someone ends up in jail because they attacked a family member with a knife as a result of them going off their meds.

I didn't say mental illness, I said mental instability.

People with those sorts of mental instabilities find they have NO support structure because they're fundamentally unsafe to everyone but state actors.

https://www.hudexchange.info/sites/onecpd/assets/File/CoC-Sy...

It gets even worse for you when you start to realize the how many people aren't even counted because they're homeless for mere days due to being kicked out, unexpected circumstances, etc.

What you're thinking of are what's known as "chronically homeless" and your challenge is showing both that drug users are a significant portion of those who are homeless for under 100 days and that those who are not drug users are a significant portion of the chronically homeless.

> This is a fair question to ask, though. Why don’t they just get jobs? What are the structural issues in society that lead to this? Why are some people chronically homeless while the average length of homelessness (for those experiencing it) is “just” around 150 days? Why is getting a job not the solution for many? Why are there even people with jobs who are homeless?

I feel that it's more fruitful to not frame discussions on "why homeless people X" and instead think about why some of us end up losing any support and specially income so that the only and best option is to lose our home.

You answered the question "why don't homeless people get jobs" with what you insist it should be reframed as. That doesn't make sense.

I don't think it's healthy let alone desirable to discourage pointed questions from kids. It's another thing altogether to teach them to be tactful and tip-toe in mixed company around sensitive topics (which goes beyond the level of maturity of a child), but they shouldn't have to do that with their own parents.

> I don't think it's healthy let alone desirable to discourage pointed questions from kids.

Reframing a question isn't tiptoeing around it: "that's a Wrong Question" is the start of an answer. Though, probably the kind of answer you'd give someone able to read The Ask and the Answer and realise it's about fascism.

Answering with a "Why don't they? What's keeping them from doing so?"-type reframe is the better approach for people not used to making such leaps on their own: you're teaching them to do this reframing, and to question premises.

(Wrong Question = question from an invalid premise)

It's not an invalid premise.

> You answered the question "why don't homeless people get jobs" with what you insist it should be reframed as.

No. The problem is not whether X has a job or not. The problem is why X was forced to lose their home. In this day and age you can still lose your home even if you are juggling multiple jobs.

> In this day and age you can still lose your home even if you are juggling multiple jobs.

Not with geared-to-income housing that one rents. A house you own, yes, but the outcome of no longer owning a home does not translate to homelessness.

The answer to your hypothetical question is because many people have mental illnesses that make them dangerous to be around in some shape or fashion to the point that only a state actor can safely step in and help.

I feel like this is one of those questions that have different answers for different people. Hence there need to be multiple solutions that solve different root problems in different ways.

Off the top of my head, homelessness can be caused by drug or alcohol abuse, mental illness, financial distress, or a desire to just tune out from societies responsibilities. I'm sure there are more.

Some would like intervention, some would not. There is no "one size fits all" solution.

The easy ones to help are the ones who are homeless for financial reasons. They need a leg up, and once up will be just fine.

It's much harder when people are unemployable (mental illness, drug abuse etc) and basically need either reoccurring rehab, or long-term medical care. Our society does not function well for those too sick to fit in.

I think it is purely political question intending to frame and limit the discussion about the issue. That is why it is pointless time wasting question.

If it was honest direct question, the only true answer is that being homeless makes getting a job super hard. You need stability, you need address, you need to guard your belongings and you are too tired to be reasonably effective in work. And employer does not want you. And that is where it stops despite ignoring quite a huge amount of reality.

And the issue with homelessness is not primary job issue. It is housing cost issue. It is mental health issue. It is social safety network issue. And drug use issue and violence issue. It is many issues in perfect storm that touch jobs only in an artificial way.

This gets even harder when the neighborhood you live in has a substantial population of visible unhoused on fentanyl. Kids will make generalizations as quickly as adults when provided with first hand observations, and explaining selection bias to a 5 year old isn’t easy.

A big part of the problem is that you have to be "in" the system to even get a job (and welfare in the countries that have it).

You MUST have an address to write on the forms, you must have a phone number. For a job you'll need to have a shower, clothes, transport, etc.

This is why programs exist to address this. All participants have to do is stick with it. So what's the problem? Either they decline, aren't fit to participate, or can't complete it. Which means there's yet more unaddressed needs before they can even be suited to work.

> We do this too, but we also often acknowledge, in front of the kids, that we have a lot of privilege to be able to do this.

I recently interviewed a few high school students and they each made a point of professing their privilege. Even a kid who emigrated recently and lives in a poor part of town talked about his privilege. When everyone talks about their privilege, the word loses its meaning.

I understand the point of being self-aware. And I wouldn't have been so struck if some of the kids had used different words. But they just sounded like little robots, reciting a mandatory confession. So if you want to talk about privilege with your kids, at least mix up the terms every now and then.

They are reciting the guilt that they are copying off their parents. It’s horrible.

Think about it this way. You worked damn hard so that your children have a better life. I know I do. So did my parents. Is it unfair that we give that advantage to our children? No. And certainly neither you or your children have anything to feel guilty about.

I’m not from the US so I don’t understand the whole slavery issue but still, no one alive today deserves this insane guilt put on them now for some ancestor sin. That’s called collective guilt and it’s why nazis killed Jews. People need to stop it.

Life is unfair and we are all different. What you do with your talents and resources is what counts. Not what some ancestor of yours did. It’s ridiculous. If you do feel privileged, give away your wealth. If you don’t, then don’t. But for gods sake stop feeling guilt about things you didn’t do.

I agree to some extent, but your comment has several major fallacies:

Slippery slope, e.g., acknowledging privilege or past wrongs leads to a dangerous path, such as the Holocaust.

False dilemma, e.g., either one must give away their wealth or not feel guilty, when there are other options.

Genetic fallacy, e.g., implying that the actions of ancestors should not be held against someone because they are not responsible for their ancestors actions. Even if someone didn't choose to have a certain privilege, that does not mean that it does not exist.

Strawman Fallacy, e.g., presenting a misrepresenation of the idea of collective guilt and suggesting that it is the same as Nazis killing Jews.

Like I said, I agree to the extent that guilt can be unproductive. If one feels that, though, about systemic injustices that allowed them to attain a privileged position in life, it could be seen as an invitation to address those and/or current injustices.

As a fellow person who also likes to notice fallacies, I'd advise you not to point them out, because it usually has a negative effect on convincing your interlocutor.

What is a different / better way to convince someone?

How would you have approached it?

Not GP but IMO it's a lazy and boring way of disagreeing. Declaring something 'a strawman' on HN is so common and not entirely done I think (not that I'm particularly familiar) with technical accuracy, it's like screaming 'fake news' with a veneer of intelligence.

GGP comment here was maybe better than most for actually relating the alleged fallacies to what the parent had said directly, but I think it'd be better/politer/more honest good discussion to phrase it like 'this is not the same because blah blah. This kind of argument is known as a blah fallacy.' or not even mention the fallacy, because does it really matter? Unless that's what you want to talk about instead of the actual topic.

It's a bit like saying 'I went through your comment looking for grammatical errors: 1) split infinitive, e.g. blah; 2) missing possessive apostrophe, e.g. blah's blah not blahs blah, ...' versus talking about the content instead and perhaps politely mentioning it. Just a bit 'ha, got you'.

Thanks.

I think you're right, this style of discussion can appear confrontational and focusing on scoring points.

I didn't see it at first - I was just parsing the words without imagining how it might be perceived.

For anyone reading this, just note that when you employ these tactics the value of accuracy gets lost.

Because that's often what these things are, a test of the values considered important. If accuracy is not important, by all means, don't point out the flaws but rather concentrate on making the other person feel good. Just understand what it is you're doing.

But ask yourself this: How do you arrive at the truth if pointing out inaccuracies is not valued? At that point, why are you even engaging?

Something to think about.

I'm not saying don't point out inaccuracies, I'm saying there are less combative ways of doing that than 'here is a list of the named fallacies in your argument'.

Not only that, convo becomes robotic. When the poster talked about nazis killing jews, we understand what he meant based on the context. Heck you can list fallacies for any argument.

Just to point out most of these "fallacies" you describe are just you disagreeing in this case. You don't believe ascribing guilt or privilege based on ancestry will lead to the holocaust again so you say its a slippery slope, however there are many historic examples where ascribing guilt or blame based on ancestry has justified mass killing (jews, kulachs, china purge, etc.). Im not saying the GP is righr just that these arent necessarily logical fallacies, just your interpretation (but being justified by dubious claims of invalid logic). He did not say "this will inequivocally lead to the holocaust" which is a strong logical claim that coukd be fallacious, but instead, "this kind of thinking is similar to thunking that justified the holocaust". Actually in a strange way you strawmanned the GP argument by not observing context and nuance.

And just as an aside it feels a bit hollow to list it out like this. It reads like a code review from the junior that just finished reading a book on design patterns or code smells. Direct engagement and counterpoint addressing the substance of the argument could be less gimmicky.

I recognize my privilege, not so I feel guilty about it, but simply as a tool of compassion. If I realize my success in life wasn’t entirely my doing, it’s much easier to realize that someone else’s lack of success isn’t always their fault, either. It helps me be less judgemental.

Recognizing privilege or advantages or whatever you want to call it has nothing to do with guilt and everything to do with empathy and understanding of the world around you.

I find it interesting that many people would be quick to recognize a physical trait as an advantage (like are we that impressed if a heavy weight boxer beats a light weight boxer?) But someone recognizing that race, family money, good genes, or whatever as advantages is somehow "woke" and apologetic.

It's like we have a world full of completely self-unaware Kramers (of Seinfeld fame) running around. So proud and unapologetic about their karate prowess... https://youtu.be/7t8xwpW8gJQ

Interestingly none of the interviewees I spoke to confessed having the privilege of intelligence ("good genes" as you put it). It was all about money. Even for children of immigrants who came here without much.

> Recognizing privilege or advantages or whatever you want to call it has nothing to do with guilt and everything to do with empathy and understanding of the world around you.

Pack it in boys, we're the generation that's finally cracked the "understanding the world around you" nut!

What does that even mean?

This is all a social delusion, exactly like the ones we criticize in our history. This too shall pass (TM) and when it does, perhaps the next generation's response to it will be more useful in helping those that need help.

We don't know, but not recognizing this for what it is, is the height of delusion imo.

What does your post even mean? It says nothing except, that you seem to be triggered by words like empathy.

Understanding and empathy in this context mean exactly what I explained. Which is understanding how much of your success is built upon the shoulders of your family, community, and simply good luck.

> What you do with your talents and resources is what counts.

This os the argument made by right wingers. No different from "pull yourself up with your bootstraps" and as a famous US rapper asked "pull ourselves up by the bootstraps? Where the f*ck are the boots?!"

Privilege isnt an issue of individuals, and I will never condone hate aimed at individual for supposed "privilege". But the people - before the word "woke" was plastered as a slogan for upper middle class white kids - have always been complaining that the system is not working to create an equal and fair society. Its selective. Its not in plain sight. To stay "woke" is to notice the subtleties of this new version, evolution of keeping black people as sub-human, incapable and dependent. To be woke ws to see the global order of economies and statecraft is mostly and pretty much exclusively European, the same people who see you as sub-human by holy writ. Thats a hard pill to swallow. You are kidding yourself if you think we can ignore all that and keep it moving.

To make an anology. Its like ocean fish being dumped in a fresh water river. People can sit on the outside and point proudly - "behold. The fish is in the fresh water and not in exposed atmos. Eat. Mate. Lay eggs and be merry." Do ocean fish really want to live as fresh water fish?

> the system is not working to create an equal and fair society

How can you make our society more equal and more fair? More "equal" makes it sound like fewer disproportionate outcomes by race. I can't think of a way to achieve that goal in a way that is "fair".

The systems in place should not actively work to keep others down, whether its by race, socioeconomoic status, religion etc. What matters is people's potential and capacity to be healthy, productive members of society. It's unlikely to be fair. Thats not really any one individuals fault.

As someone who came from extreme poverty, I don't agree with this take at all.

Yes, some people are in terrible circumstances due to forces beyond their control. But what you're doing is trying to convince everyone men should be treated as if they have a micro-penis because some men DO have a micro-penis.

The better messaging is that if you do NOT have a micro-penis, you have an opportunity for success if you learn decision making skills (yes, the analogy breaks down, but the point is made).

The messaging matters, but what ends up happening is those for whom the messaging is far less important tend to send the wrong signals because they're not the signals that help assuage their guilt for not helping.

> As someone who came from extreme poverty, I don't agree with this take at all.

What you are doing is taking things to a personal level when my point was really about systems, macro. So that an individual need not feel guilt. At least someone who isn't the head of state.

right, you're not actually interested in helping people, that's the point. If you were, your response wouldn't be "you've done it, but that doesn't matter".

Yeah. Probably.

> Life is unfair and we are all different. What you do with your talents and resources is what counts. Not what some ancestor of yours did. It’s ridiculous. If you do feel privileged, give away your wealth. If you don’t, then don’t. But for gods sake stop feeling guilt about things you didn’t do.

There's a video with Dsouza (spelling?) where he's speaking at a college campus with a bunch of college kids who are attacking him in the Q&A. He made the point that college admissions is limited and if they truly believed what they were saying, they would quit college to give another the opportunity they are privileged to have.

Of course there were reasons why that particular college kid didn't have to do that...and more power to said college kid, I would defend their right to stay.

But I've always loved the hypocrisy in that moment.

> "did you know [classmate] has never been on a cruise before!!"

There's a first time for everything.

Unless you've actually lived through it yourself, you yourself don't understand so there's no chance to instill this in your children.

It would be akin to trying to get an extremely wealthy child to understand the experience of using a washing machine for years on end when they've never even seen one because the help does all of that for them.

Or the reverse, to get a middle class child to understand what it's like to have never even seen a washing machine because you have other humans who do it all for you.

It's the human condition.

But what you're doing is performative in the same way that screaming at people on twitter rather than actually working to help child abuse victims is performative.

It's a way to assuage your feelings of guilt without expending enough of yourself to attempt to improve others' lives.

---

On a side note, I'm aware HN is a "safe space" for folks like yourself, but sometimes it needs to be said. Perspective is a hell of a drug and often when I see posts like this it gets my gander up as someone who went from extreme poverty to privilege. And to answer the question that's coming, I'm known to be extremely charitable to _persons_ who need it, but I don't go out of my way to solve the general problem either. But the difference is I have no illusions about it.

Well first off I have the perspective and did live through it, so there's that.

But also, why do people assume others can't have empathy? I don't have to touch a hot stove to know it hurts. I don't need to live in poverty to understand how difficult it is.

Growing up Jewish I have been discriminated against, but I don't assume anyone who isn't Jewish can't understand my discrimination.

It sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder, or perhaps guilt for getting out of your situation. You shouldn't. You should be proud of your accomplishments.

But you should also give people the benefit of the doubt that they can actually have empathy even if they haven't lived it.

> I don't have to touch a hot stove to know it hurts.

You do need to touch a hot stove to understand what a burn feels like, just as you need to actually deliver a baby to understand what that feels like. "It hurts" is not understanding in the same way that I'll never truly understand what an orgasm feels like for a woman (and vice versa for them). I've read it starts in the stomach and moves upwards through the body until it climaxes in the head, but who knows if that's actually true. Certainly for me it doesn't feel that way.

Here's the question you have to answer.

If you're walking by a drain that has a dozen chicks trapped in it but do nothing outside of recognize their plight, are you a good person for having recognized or a bad person for that recognition not being a call to action?

_THAT_ is the basic moral quandry you're up against and I'm pointing out that not only is your solution wrong, you're trying to convince others you're moral rather than just neutral.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com