
The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger - subpar
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/12/the-silicon-valley-paradox-one-in-four-people-are-at-risk-of-hunger
======
mjfl
Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for
much less? Why should I have to pay increased taxes for your
ignorance/provincialism? Is living in San Francisco a fundamental right?

I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there, for
the low cost of living combined with the vibrant-enough economy. Unemployment
was at 5% _through the great recession_. However, I find whenever I suggest
that, people act like if they move there they will be lynched - as if the
place is a primitive wasteland inhabited by backwards rednecks carrying
pitchforks. In reality, it is a modestly wealthy area filled with dentists,
insurance providers, accountants, and other mid-level white collar workers.
You're more likely to die of boredom, but isn't that better than food stamps,
and isn't boredom good if you want to raise a family? The people that read and
write these articles don't seem to consider things like this.

~~~
stinky
There is a solution. At the moment successful EU countries such as Germany,
Sweden, Finland, Denmark are struggling with aging population and not enough
people to fill blue colar jobs.

I think EU should make it easier for US citizens who get any job here to move
over. Americans in general are super hard working. Europe needs hard working
people, while we can provide them with free universal healthcare, free
university education, and way more upward mobility than they could ever dream
of.

The deal could be so that you can move to Europe for any job, and if you work
for 5 years then you are eligible for permanent residence. If you loose your
work, and become unemployed for more than 6 months you have to move back to
US.

Yes, there would be risks, but at the same time, it could also be a win win -
hard working folk from USA would get a chance to raise their kids in a society
that would allow them to put their kids through college without selling a
kidney.

~~~
mseebach
> way more upward mobility than they could ever dream of

It's worth keeping in mind that it's _relative_ upwards mobility - upwards
mobility in the US conjures up some slightly different mental images. Top 10%
in Denmark is absolutely unremarkable middle class in the US.

If you enjoy being relatively equal to your neighbours, then it's great, if
you enjoy objective material wealth, less so.

~~~
thirdsun
You probably already know this, but of course it's useless to compare absolute
material wealth between european and US citizens.

Again, you might already be aware of that, but I'd say it's much more
important to consider the benefits that come with a european wage that might
seem unremarkable in the US: Healthcare, education, social security are the
most obvious aspects, but in general I'm sure your money, even if it's less in
absolute terms, will buy you a lot more in europe.

------
aaron-lebo
This seems to explain at least some of the UBI-love tech founders have. They
live as billionaires in a community, that despite all their money and
highfalutin ideas doesn't actually take care of its own, unless you have
millions if not billions of dollars.

Of course to them the only solution is more money, that's the only solution
they seem to know. They'd be more believable if they fixed their own literal
and metaphorical neighborhoods first before continuing their personal
campaigns of empire.

Sorry if it's whiny, it's just that the contrast between words and actions is
stark.

~~~
sax0n
I've never been to the US, so forgive me if I'm ignorant, but if the problem
is poverty, surely the solution _is_ more money? What's wrong with a UBI or
some other mechanism to deliver that?

~~~
alexanderdmitri
As a US citizen, I see just handing out cash as a terrible way to fix this
poverty. With the way our society operates, I'd put my money that whatever UBI
is distributed, most of it will be leveraged upwards in creative and
manipulative ways without very many productive gains.

Poverty is a complex issue because there are so many different causes behind
it and they are often intertwined. A few reasons off the top of my head:
systemic oppression and social prejudices, mental health, desperation, poor
self-perception, lack of opportunity, irresponsible handling of money,
ineffective upbringing, bad set of cards, medical problems (and the often
accompanying debt), terrible education, malnutrition, a system that largely
blames the impoverished for being so, rich people who get to set their own
definition of charity for financial gain, and the list goes on and on ...

It'll never happen, but I think a much better solution would be defining a set
of basic needs where more money != better quality: healthcare, food,
education, housing.

Sounds crazy, doesn't it? Especially that last one.

------
epistasis
Housing problem. There's not enough of it, and the people that moved here in
the 1960s have fought tooth and nail from more people being able to move here.

It's a completely artificial construct that drives up the cost of living and
robs the poor with rent seeking.

All of California's inequality problems go back to that. High salaries for
some people help make it stronger, but the greed of the NIMBY homeowners is a
far greater cause of putting people at risk for going hungry, because they
have been trying so hard to keep them out of housing.

~~~
gaius
_people that moved here in the 1960s have fought tooth and nail from more
people being able to move here_

Well that cuts to the very heart of democracy doesn't it? Why would the
government of territory X not answer to the taxpayer-voter of X, over people
who merely want to live there?

There are reasons why they might of course, enumerate those reasons and the
real dynamic will come to light.

~~~
jdietrich
There is a fine line between democracy and mob rule.

The Nash equilibrium for any sufficiently stable democratic system is for
49.9% of the electorate to be treated as subhuman. Democracy inevitably
becomes tyrannical if civil institutions fail to defend the interests of the
minority against the interests of the majority.

------
d--b
It's a culture problem: with so many people being so rich in the valley, you
need to be ruthless to be part of the rich people's club. It means that if
you're at the helm of a successful company, you'd rather become a billionaire
yourself than letting the poorer people you employ become wealthy.

Another factor is that a good chunk of the tech's business was about making
things cheaper rather than making new stuff. Amazon is cheaper than
bookstores, Uber is cheaper than regular taxi, and so on. Even if the tech
helps make the costs lowers, it also often translates into lower worker wages,
and doesn't create more value overall that what existed before.

------
jhoechtl
Why is this called a paradox? It's a greed and winner-takes-it-all culture.
What are the mechanism in place which would guarantee at least a mild version
of wealth redistribution?

~~~
Veelox
The paradox is that Silicon Valley is one of he wealthiest parts of the
country and yet >25% of the population is food insecure.

~~~
danharaj
That's the 'paradox' of capitalism. But it's only a paradox if you take
bourgeois conceptions of wealth and prosperity at face value.

------
frk1206
This is so so incredibly sad. I see people on this thread saying stuff like
"this is how life is" and "suck it up and move" but the core of the problem is
that we have literally institutionalized slavery by calling it a market force.
This woman isn't a market operator, shes basically a modern day slave. Crucial
to the functioning of the system (or Facebook doesn't have food) but somehow
also expendable. This is not just a American but a worldwide issue. Whatever
the market forces are it just doesn't make any sense that a cook is unable to
make a living.

------
bitL
Most of SW jobs in Silicon Valley can be done remotely. Frankly, it's about
time our industry embraces this instead of reversing the trend and adding
insane "open office" spaces everywhere, killing productivity and happiness.

------
junkscience2017
Why is this a surprise? California is the #1 poverty state[1], spends almost
the least on education etc etc. State tax receipts mostly just rewards CalPERs
members.

1
[http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/...](http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/chad-
mayes/true-california-has-nations-highest-poverty-rate-w/)

------
taurath
Its kind of ironic and interesting to juxtapose this article with the post
where Chamath Palihapitiya the former Facebook exec says "I want the fucking
money" to increase his influence.

The economic output in sheer profit terms of Silicon Valley companies is
probably enough to feed the continent. There are probably scores of
individuals living there that could create a food program with 1/4 of their
net worth that could prevent all hunger.

This kind of makes the point to me that the skillset to get somebody a lot of
money is the exact opposite skillset necessary to care for their neighbors.

------
lacker
"Food insecure" is a very strange way of describing this situation. The people
described are spending far more money on rent than they are on food. The real
problem is that the rent is too damn high.

------
theoh
There's a book from 2002 called "The Silicon Valley of Dreams" that seems
never to have been mentioned on HN.
[https://nyupress.org/books/9780814767092/](https://nyupress.org/books/9780814767092/)

It's about the environmental conditions around electronics manufacturing, and
their disproportionate impact on immigrants and minorities. Maybe a bit too
hardcore for the optimists here (I'd include myself), but it covers similar
issues to this Guardian article and is worth being aware of.

------
newshorts
Hyper local meritocratic neoliberalism

