zlacker

[return to "San Francisco homelessness: Park ranger helps one person at a time"]
1. mrlamb+8d[view] [source] 2025-02-17 01:59:13
>>NaOH+(OP)
I was really swept up in this article and the portrait of Amanda Barrows - what a unique and strong person and this city is incredibly lucky to have her.

Unlike some here, I came away with a deep sense of empathy, and today’s HN snark and frustration bounced off me pretty hard. The public order issues - homelessness in parks, the challenges of shared spaces—have certainly impacted me. But more than that, I struggle with how to translate the state of the world to my boys. I always remind them: every unhoused person was once a little boy or girl. We might be older now, but we’re still kids inside, and nobody dreams of growing up in these circumstances.

What struck me most was the balance of compassion and pragmatism that Amanda brings to her work. It’s easy to be frustrated with the policies and bureaucratic inefficiencies that slow down real solutions - but they are, in some ways, understandable.

The biggest frustration for me is the gap between the mental state of many unhoused individuals and the requirements needed to secure housing. The city surely understands the long-term costs of its policies, and it’s run by highly pragmatic people with limited budgets. But rules are rules, and at some point, top-down accommodations (including medical interventions...) are necessary to bridge this gap.

◧◩
2. Aunche+YD[view] [source] 2025-02-17 06:13:45
>>mrlamb+8d
> What struck me most was the balance of compassion and pragmatism that Amanda brings to her work.

Nothing about this article strikes me as pragmatic. She's spending all her energy attempting to help people with the least likelihood of success and then gets angry at the system when they inevitably fail. The city didn't kick Morrisette out of the hotel because they like zero-tolerance policies, but because other people deserve a chance a chance to live in a free hotel room as well.

◧◩◪
3. mordae+pS[view] [source] 2025-02-17 08:43:19
>>Aunche+YD
I am sorry to hear that the richest country on earth cannot afford tiny private flats for anyone and everyone unhoused.
◧◩◪◨
4. Aunche+uT[view] [source] 2025-02-17 08:57:09
>>mordae+pS
I mean yes. When engineers making six figures can't afford a flat in the bay area thanks to nimbyism, then you can't expect the government to either.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. dventi+Tu1[view] [source] 2025-02-17 13:56:56
>>Aunche+uT
"engineers making six figures" is the cause of San Francisco's problems, not "nimbyism."
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. immibi+0R1[view] [source] 2025-02-17 16:13:40
>>dventi+Tu1
The problem with rich people is not that they are rich, it's the side effects of them being rich which cause other people to be poorer. I have no problem with Elon owning 10 megayachts if he wants to. Unless he's buying so much steel to build his megayachts that no one else can get steel things. Then it's a problem. And only then.

Even then, the problem could be Elon buying so much steel, or it could be steel manufacturers deliberately limiting steel production and only selling it to Elon to keep prices high. The latter is what is happening with landlords and building restrictions.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. dventi+eU1[view] [source] 2025-02-17 16:30:02
>>immibi+0R1
Except that the "side effects" of being rich aren't "side effects", they're the essential effects. Being richer than other people by definition means you can outcompete those other people for goods and services. That's the whole purpose. Elon owning 10 megayachts means 10 megayachts (as much as $5 billion) worth of productive capacity being redirected away from other uses that benefit many people, to a use that is frivolous insofar as it largely benefits just one person.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. zozbot+HU1[view] [source] 2025-02-17 16:33:19
>>dventi+eU1
Elon got rich by creating goods and services for other people - such as EV cars, or low-cost space launches. It's a wash. Oh wait, actually it isn't because every trade of goods and services is advantageous to both parties by definition.

(There are of course some who only got rich by transferring wealth away from others - but they're not the ones people mostly complain about wrt. 'the rich'.)

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. dventi+AX1[view] [source] 2025-02-17 16:49:17
>>zozbot+HU1
Personally, I don't know any working-class people who can afford a Tesla, let alone a space launch vehicle.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. thauma+we2[view] [source] 2025-02-17 18:30:21
>>dventi+AX1
I do!

I met a nursing student in Shanghai who ended up marrying a "driver". (For reference, the way you get into nursing school in China is by flunking the college entrance exam.)

Attending Fudan University, I also met several students there and at the school across the street, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics. Both are highly prestigious.

Everyone's graduated by now, and the most materially successful of all the contacts I made, by far, is the nurse. She already owns a Tesla and an apartment in Shanghai. (She also has a child, which is true of only one of the university students.) What's her secret?

The couple's parents bought those things for them.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
11. dventi+Dk2[view] [source] 2025-02-17 19:08:53
>>thauma+we2
What's her secret? She works in healthcare, which is very expensive in the United States and especially in the Bay Area, and tends to pay nurses very very well (especially in the Bay Area). This illustrates my point. Her high salary as a nurse comes at the cost of many people around her, in many ways: we all pay higher healthcare costs, in part because of the high pay for doctors and nurses (as well as to hospital administrators, insurance companies, drug companies, etc.), and she's yet another highly-paid professional with the ability to outcompete other people for things like housing. Is she working class? I'm not convinced that she is.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨
12. thauma+c43[view] [source] 2025-02-18 01:22:41
>>dventi+Dk2
This is one of the worst failures of reading comprehension I've ever seen.

Quick question: what is the only country mentioned in my comment above?

[go to top]