Dating in Delhi when you're poor(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Dating in Delhi when you're poor
https://www.reuters.com/article/delhi-dating-idUSKBN1DU0NE
294 comments
https://archive.is/fv5U4
The author is convinced that the couple’s life sucks.
He/she is writing from a point of view of superiority - “look, this is what they’re lacking, they can’t afford a Rs.8000 dinner”. To a billionaire, my software engineer life will look miserable - “They have to go eat at Panera and Olive Garden. For their employer, a nice dineout costs $5000.”
Can we stop looking down on people because they cannot afford what’s normal for us? I agree about the freedom and social parts here, so let’s focus on that. Most of the article seems to be written to evoke shock and awe from a middle-class person - look what they can’t afford! Lets focus on their social struggles instead of what they can or cannot afford.
He/she is writing from a point of view of superiority - “look, this is what they’re lacking, they can’t afford a Rs.8000 dinner”. To a billionaire, my software engineer life will look miserable - “They have to go eat at Panera and Olive Garden. For their employer, a nice dineout costs $5000.”
Can we stop looking down on people because they cannot afford what’s normal for us? I agree about the freedom and social parts here, so let’s focus on that. Most of the article seems to be written to evoke shock and awe from a middle-class person - look what they can’t afford! Lets focus on their social struggles instead of what they can or cannot afford.
> The author is convinced that the couple’s life sucks.
Objectively, their life does kinda suck. The woman is living in a slum and cleaning houses for a living, earning very little for a lot of exhausting labor. The man is doing little better. They have to be creative in finding places to just hang out with each other, which is really the foundation for any relationship.
This isn't a judgement call on their relative economic status; life is just more difficult for them. I didn't feel the author was looking down on them as much as pointing out the obscene difference in ease of living between the upper and lower classes.
Objectively, their life does kinda suck. The woman is living in a slum and cleaning houses for a living, earning very little for a lot of exhausting labor. The man is doing little better. They have to be creative in finding places to just hang out with each other, which is really the foundation for any relationship.
This isn't a judgement call on their relative economic status; life is just more difficult for them. I didn't feel the author was looking down on them as much as pointing out the obscene difference in ease of living between the upper and lower classes.
Not kinda. It sucks.
I agree with some of your points. And kudos to the journalists for exploring this topic.
However, look at the following:
“She’s the first woman from her family who makes her own money.”
To her, that might be an amazing success. Getting out of your default path and making it on your own is a big thing. Why do we need to emphasize that she can’t afford to eat at a Zomato restaurant? Is that a minimum bar for life being good?
I agree with your point that they do have a lack of freedom and a lot of societal issues. Also basic facilities. Those should obviously be called out and kudos to the journalists for this.
I’m mainly commenting on the author’s choice of contrasting it with luxury brands:
> “I don’t really want any expensive gifts, or to go to big restaurants. These things are superficial,” said Anuradha, who said she likes watching romance movies and is a big Shah Rukh Khan fan.
Kudos to her, she doesn’t consider those important, then why does the author keep calling out luxuries she doesn’t have? Malls, expensive restaurants, Zomato, Tinder.
Sadly in Indian soceity, these luxury items are given too much importance in determining your “class”. In the US (and many less rich countries), take a look at articles on poverty. They focus on problems and solutions, not on brands they can’t afford.
However, look at the following:
“She’s the first woman from her family who makes her own money.”
To her, that might be an amazing success. Getting out of your default path and making it on your own is a big thing. Why do we need to emphasize that she can’t afford to eat at a Zomato restaurant? Is that a minimum bar for life being good?
I agree with your point that they do have a lack of freedom and a lot of societal issues. Also basic facilities. Those should obviously be called out and kudos to the journalists for this.
I’m mainly commenting on the author’s choice of contrasting it with luxury brands:
> “I don’t really want any expensive gifts, or to go to big restaurants. These things are superficial,” said Anuradha, who said she likes watching romance movies and is a big Shah Rukh Khan fan.
Kudos to her, she doesn’t consider those important, then why does the author keep calling out luxuries she doesn’t have? Malls, expensive restaurants, Zomato, Tinder.
Sadly in Indian soceity, these luxury items are given too much importance in determining your “class”. In the US (and many less rich countries), take a look at articles on poverty. They focus on problems and solutions, not on brands they can’t afford.
Pretending that there are solutions to the problems that poverty brings is exactly the form class warfare from above takes in the US.
In my humble opinion it all boils down to cost, and I don't mean monetary cost. I mean real cost. The cost of attention from a computational perspective.
What you described traces its roots in sensationalism, which is useful to catch people's attention (or so the piece becomes memorable for them).
As a soceity, we are always seeking to lower the cost of obtaining stimuli and qualia[1]. Combining this with the fact that people's lives become ever more complex, the cost of attention increases. Among the masses, short-attention span is now the norm.
Therefore it is important to practise mindfulness. And this is why I believe psychedelics and meditation are fundemental for us to transition into a more sensible soceity.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28020031
What you described traces its roots in sensationalism, which is useful to catch people's attention (or so the piece becomes memorable for them).
As a soceity, we are always seeking to lower the cost of obtaining stimuli and qualia[1]. Combining this with the fact that people's lives become ever more complex, the cost of attention increases. Among the masses, short-attention span is now the norm.
Therefore it is important to practise mindfulness. And this is why I believe psychedelics and meditation are fundemental for us to transition into a more sensible soceity.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28020031
Why do you think the author is convinced these people's lives suck? I didn't get that impression from the article. It describes their life. Some might have the reaction, "oh that sucks". Others might not.
Does their life really suck though? It's probably harder with fewer luxuries but happiness is not proportional how much money you have/make. You could be a rich and miserable but you could also could be poor and happy/content.
if the masses realized/felt that their life sucks - they would revolt already against the status quo
or maybe not, since upper classes will swiftly deal with it and go back to being miserable about their first world problems
or maybe not, since upper classes will swiftly deal with it and go back to being miserable about their first world problems
I’ve wondered that too. In countries with massive class disparities why don’t the classes band together and revolt?
I don’t think this paints the full picture but I believe this is at least partially due to differences in regional identities even within the class. India has multiple major languages, several castes and sub-castes (reference to this has been made in the article). This makes class solidarity much harder among the lower classes, who also have difficulty in accessing good education.
The upper classes on the other hand all speak English or Hindi. They can communicate with one another. Their easier access to education and frequent contact with people from other regions of the country makes them care less about those divisions. There is much more class solidarity in the upper classes.
I don’t think this paints the full picture but I believe this is at least partially due to differences in regional identities even within the class. India has multiple major languages, several castes and sub-castes (reference to this has been made in the article). This makes class solidarity much harder among the lower classes, who also have difficulty in accessing good education.
The upper classes on the other hand all speak English or Hindi. They can communicate with one another. Their easier access to education and frequent contact with people from other regions of the country makes them care less about those divisions. There is much more class solidarity in the upper classes.
> In countries with massive class disparities why don’t the classes band together and revolt?
A lot of factors come into play there. Protesting and political engagement require a lot of time and energy. Many of the poorest people need to spend huge amounts of both just to survive to day to day.
Their health is often poor, they may not be as well educated, they're exhausted from back-breaking physical labor and from living in constant stress. It'd seem hard to expect people in that situation to organize a grassroots movement let alone an army.
Even if someone had the time, the energy, the physical and mental well-being to fight for change, and they could do all the work involved in determining exactly who it is that needs overthrowing, how to best set about doing that, and what should be done if they somehow succeed, they then still have to convince others who are lost in their own struggles for survival to abandon what little they've managed to secure for themselves and join them.
That's already a lot of overcome and doesn't even get into the countless ways people are conditioned to feel helpless, powerless, inadequate, responsible for their own suffering, or divided and intentionally pitted against each other or at least some "other" who can be blamed for their problems.
Then of course, even if they do manage to overcome all of that, they're still up against an enemy with vast amounts of resources and power. The only thing they've got going for them are their numbers and that they don't have all that much to lose.
It's amazing to me that revolts happen at all really.
It'd probably go a lot easier if it didn't start from the bottom. Get the declining middle classes involved or some sympathetic members of the upper class and it's another story entirely.
A lot of factors come into play there. Protesting and political engagement require a lot of time and energy. Many of the poorest people need to spend huge amounts of both just to survive to day to day.
Their health is often poor, they may not be as well educated, they're exhausted from back-breaking physical labor and from living in constant stress. It'd seem hard to expect people in that situation to organize a grassroots movement let alone an army.
Even if someone had the time, the energy, the physical and mental well-being to fight for change, and they could do all the work involved in determining exactly who it is that needs overthrowing, how to best set about doing that, and what should be done if they somehow succeed, they then still have to convince others who are lost in their own struggles for survival to abandon what little they've managed to secure for themselves and join them.
That's already a lot of overcome and doesn't even get into the countless ways people are conditioned to feel helpless, powerless, inadequate, responsible for their own suffering, or divided and intentionally pitted against each other or at least some "other" who can be blamed for their problems.
Then of course, even if they do manage to overcome all of that, they're still up against an enemy with vast amounts of resources and power. The only thing they've got going for them are their numbers and that they don't have all that much to lose.
It's amazing to me that revolts happen at all really.
It'd probably go a lot easier if it didn't start from the bottom. Get the declining middle classes involved or some sympathetic members of the upper class and it's another story entirely.
Very well said, and a sobering reality of the world - whenever and wherever "the few" hold the majority to ransom in a grotesque asymmetric power equilibrium.
Unfortunately, the same dynamic applies at the national/international level and can often be seen in attitudes between "developed" and "developing" nations.
Unfortunately, the same dynamic applies at the national/international level and can often be seen in attitudes between "developed" and "developing" nations.
It's a matter of perspective though. Would you rather be with the love of your life and not have much disposable income or vice versa? I've actually experienced the opposite - living in Delhi with plenty of disposable income but no way to meet people, let alone women. I just hung out at home playing video games.
Would I trade places with them? No, I was content with my life. But would these folks swap with me? Based on how happy they are with each other, I'd guess not.
Would I trade places with them? No, I was content with my life. But would these folks swap with me? Based on how happy they are with each other, I'd guess not.
Relative to a billionaire all our lives suck economically - "those poor wretches without even the resources to individually colonize space". (Pardon me for any billionaires reading). But there are a lot of ways to measure "suck" - independence, resourcefulness and self determination; Gross National Happiness Index; health/longevity; education; etc..
I got a different message from the article: the article brings a very different perspective to what the upper classes know of. These wage earners work the same wage for many of my friends in Delhi, irrespective of whether my friends earn $50k or $500k. Most of the upper classes literally look down on these folks, thinking perhaps that they are unable to date or go out and have fun, etc. The article shows that barring the price point, they engage in many of the same activities.
Some anecdotal evidence I've observed when visiting the homes of the lower wage workers in Delhi:-
1.) If they have a proper brick and mortar house, even on rent, they consider themselves successful. They do a very good job of maintaining their local colonies, even better than some of the upper class areas.
2.) The people in the above situation were often adamant about sending their kids to school, and in some cases, even private schools.
3.) They use most of the electronics we use, just cheaper versions. TVs, fridges, even a laptop in one household.
4.) The biggest differentiator between a happy lower income household and a dysfunctional one was alcohol and drug abuse.
5.) The "bad" ones are usually counseled by neighbors and members of the community, and if that was to no avail, later ostracized. There was always a support mechanism in place for the (nearly always female) victim so that she could continue living in the community.
In all of the above cases, we see that their lives mirror ours, or in some cases, they've had to adapt unique social systems despite the challenges, which ultimately seem to be better than the ones we upper class folks seem to have.
Some anecdotal evidence I've observed when visiting the homes of the lower wage workers in Delhi:-
1.) If they have a proper brick and mortar house, even on rent, they consider themselves successful. They do a very good job of maintaining their local colonies, even better than some of the upper class areas.
2.) The people in the above situation were often adamant about sending their kids to school, and in some cases, even private schools.
3.) They use most of the electronics we use, just cheaper versions. TVs, fridges, even a laptop in one household.
4.) The biggest differentiator between a happy lower income household and a dysfunctional one was alcohol and drug abuse.
5.) The "bad" ones are usually counseled by neighbors and members of the community, and if that was to no avail, later ostracized. There was always a support mechanism in place for the (nearly always female) victim so that she could continue living in the community.
In all of the above cases, we see that their lives mirror ours, or in some cases, they've had to adapt unique social systems despite the challenges, which ultimately seem to be better than the ones we upper class folks seem to have.
> He/she is writing from a point of view of superiority - “look, this is what they’re lacking, they can’t afford a Rs.8000 dinner”. To a billionaire, my software engineer life will look miserable - “They have to go eat at Panera and Olive Garden. For their employer, a nice dineout costs $5000.”
yeah, but so what? the comparison is not holding.
poverty is not a lifestyle.
yeah, but so what? the comparison is not holding.
poverty is not a lifestyle.
> The 23-year-old earns 8,000 rupees a month ($125) for her work. That’s what her employers can expect to pay for a single “date night” out at one of the city’s finer restaurants.
Even in 2021 (article is from 2017) this is an exaggeration. You can have dinner for 2 at a five-star hotel in Delhi for less than half that amount, unless you're splurging on the drinks.
Even in 2021 (article is from 2017) this is an exaggeration. You can have dinner for 2 at a five-star hotel in Delhi for less than half that amount, unless you're splurging on the drinks.
I was surprised by this statement as well. I think the author wanted to paint a picture how miserable things are. Things definitely are difficult for them financially.
The prices stated however is bit too over exaggerated. A dinner that starts at $47 in India is something would have made me think 10 times before going for it. You can have a really good dinner for two at 10$ at a nice restaurant in India.
A dinner at an expensive hotel in Mumbai, an expensive city cost me 5k. I really couldn't imagine paying more than that. The author was exaggerating for effect, claiming 8k was typical. It's much more likely to be 1-1.5k.
I don’t think that’s accurate - I remember being in Delhi circa 2010 and dinners at the nice hotels coming to something close to this amount, albeit with (not outrageous) wine.
I actually went and pulled up the menu for one of the restaurants at the Taj Palace, a place I know well, and an app and entree picked at random came to $73, easily crossing the $125 mark for two without dessert or any beverages.
I actually went and pulled up the menu for one of the restaurants at the Taj Palace, a place I know well, and an app and entree picked at random came to $73, easily crossing the $125 mark for two without dessert or any beverages.
You can check the menu for Machan hotel from the Taj Palace here [0]. The most expensive item on the menu (a seafood grill, which is probably not a single-person dish) is around $30, and there are plenty of dishes in the sub-$20 range. I've eaten in several five-star hotels in India from various chains (Taj, ITC, Trident, etc) in various cities (Bangalore, Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata). Excluding drinks, I can't recall paying over Rs. 2500 before tax for 2. It helps that my SO and I are both vegetarian, but even non-vegetarian would only cost around 50% more. Drinks - especially hard liquor - are crazy expensive though, and will easily cost you Rs. 1000+ including tax for even a single large drink or cocktail.
0. https://www.eazydiner.com/delhi-ncr/machan-the-taj-mahal-hot...
0. https://www.eazydiner.com/delhi-ncr/machan-the-taj-mahal-hot...
Just to add, these are five-star restaurants we're talking about it. While I am privileged enough to be able to afford them, even I don't eat at such places more than 2-3 times an year if that. At very good non-five-star restaurants (where the food is arguably better if you ask me) you can have a meal for two for under Rs. 2000 including tax. One of my favourites in the NCR region is 21 Gun Salute in Gurgaon [0]. And at a chain like Haldiram's [1], which is where most Indians including me would go for a normal weekend outing, you can have a meal for 2 for under Rs. 500.
0. https://www.zomato.com/ncr/21-gun-salute-sector-29
1. https://www.haldiram.com/about
0. https://www.zomato.com/ncr/21-gun-salute-sector-29
1. https://www.haldiram.com/about
I mean - we're talking about different hotels. Here's the menu from orient express from Taj Palace:
https://www.tajhotels.com/content/dam/luxury/hotels/taj-pala...
Obviously, I realize you have a lot more experience with a wide variety of places, I was just making a comment that the contention from the article is at least plausible.
https://www.tajhotels.com/content/dam/luxury/hotels/taj-pala...
Obviously, I realize you have a lot more experience with a wide variety of places, I was just making a comment that the contention from the article is at least plausible.
I don't deny that it's possible. If you're having champagne and caviar on your date you're definitely going to run a bill of over Rs. 10k. But the author claims that 8k is a typical expense for a date night out, which is absurd.
I pay half that for dining out in Amsterdam.
What the author tried to implicitly say, and what many readers seemed to miss, is the fact that how the concepts of "dating" are uncharted and carry so many risks for people in the lower classes even after you take away the money factor. Their families and societies are tied up in such a way that makes indulging into such "modern" or "western" acts a huge taboo, with the youngsters facing severe punishments if caught. For many parents with such mindsets, their children "dating" someone is seen as an act of dishonor.
Wealthy countries are struggling with the impact of teen moms, single mothers & alcoholic/druggie parents.
In countries like India with 1/10th to 1/25th the percapita income such social restrictions are a necessity.
In countries like India with 1/10th to 1/25th the percapita income such social restrictions are a necessity.
> Wealthy countries are struggling with the impact of teen moms, single mothers & alcoholic/druggie parents.
Are they, really? Do you have a source? I'm willing to bet the suffering these social restrictions put on young women and men in general is several times that faced by the outliers you're conveniently pointing to. Also willing to bet these cases of teen moms and alcoholic parents will be much more prevalent among the poorer classes in India than in the west in general.
Are they, really? Do you have a source? I'm willing to bet the suffering these social restrictions put on young women and men in general is several times that faced by the outliers you're conveniently pointing to. Also willing to bet these cases of teen moms and alcoholic parents will be much more prevalent among the poorer classes in India than in the west in general.
> Also willing to bet these cases of teen moms and alcoholic parents will be much more prevalent among the poorer classes in India than in the west in general.
Precisely why the social restrictions exist. Alcohol has been a taboo in most parts of the country until the recent 2 decades with "westernisation".
> Are they, really? Do you have a source?
About 25% of children in the US are in single parent families. By itself isn't bad, but the cascading effects on society may be significant.
Precisely why the social restrictions exist. Alcohol has been a taboo in most parts of the country until the recent 2 decades with "westernisation".
> Are they, really? Do you have a source?
About 25% of children in the US are in single parent families. By itself isn't bad, but the cascading effects on society may be significant.
But how do you know these social restrictions prevent those vices? If anything, not having the freedom to choose one's spouse is bound to produce worse effects. A child would be much better off in a single-parent family than in a toxic household where the couple was basically forced together by their parents. Most of those 25% of American single-parent children live considerable better and happier than their Indian counterparts.
In a wealthy society an abandoned child is the states responsibility, a country like India just does not have the resources.
So this falls on the society, so you get social restrictions.
So this falls on the society, so you get social restrictions.
[deleted]
We never went to malls as everything there was out of my budget. I was also afraid that they would throw us out because we couldn’t speak English
Reading this breaks my heart. In a few weeks India beings an year-long celebration to mark the country’s 75th Independence Day. And yet people feel discriminated because the don’t speak English.
Reading this breaks my heart. In a few weeks India beings an year-long celebration to mark the country’s 75th Independence Day. And yet people feel discriminated because the don’t speak English.
It is not just English. Traditional clothes are also frowned upon. A few years there was a case of a man not being let into a mall because he was wearing a Dhoti(A traditional Indian men's wear, prevalent in some parts of the country.) But the irony was he had to argue in English to be let in.
And something I heard years back. Kids were not allowed into another school where a competition was being held. Why...because they were in dhotis and not in uniform. The only problem, that was their school uniform.
And something I heard years back. Kids were not allowed into another school where a competition was being held. Why...because they were in dhotis and not in uniform. The only problem, that was their school uniform.
Isn't just the language or clothes. People feel inferior/discriminated to eat with their hand (traditional Indian food) as opposed to using forks / knifes, which somehow is supposed to be "civilized". People feel that even when they speak English, their Indian accent is somehow bad / funny. Its not uncommon for people (specially from the western world) to make judgements how Indian/Asian food smells/tastes bad. Wonder how much of these stem from the colonial past of systematically being subjugated and being told you're inferior for 100s of years.
[deleted]
Twelve years after they started dating, they married. The family disapproved. Surender’s grandmother and Preeti’s mother were from the same “gotra,” or clan. Hindu clans prohibit marriage within the descendants of an unbroken male line.
The Wiki page on "gotra" suggests they "only" have to go back seven generations (I don't know any of my ancestors beyond five generations and the father of one of my great-grandfathers was never known; would that be scandalous in India?), which seems to imply extreme complication. If each female ancestor has her own unique gotra, in seven generations there would be 64 gotras. Unless there are thousands of gotras, it must be very common for a prospective bride and groom to overlap. Little wonder that arranged marriages are common.
The Wiki page on "gotra" suggests they "only" have to go back seven generations (I don't know any of my ancestors beyond five generations and the father of one of my great-grandfathers was never known; would that be scandalous in India?), which seems to imply extreme complication. If each female ancestor has her own unique gotra, in seven generations there would be 64 gotras. Unless there are thousands of gotras, it must be very common for a prospective bride and groom to overlap. Little wonder that arranged marriages are common.
In practice, there really are several dozen gotras (at least among the Brahmins), if not hundreds.
The traditional practice was for Brahmins to declare their exact line of descent alongside the gotra, by naming five noteworthy ancestors (pravara rishis), starting from the top level saptarishi ancestor gotra(one of seven). Some of the saptarishis famously didn't get along, and their descendants are considered incompatible matches for marriage. When considering a marriage alliance from a family with the same top level saptarishi gotra, it was considered acceptable if at least three of the five pravara rishis were different, ie, a distant branch of the family. As families lost their traditions, people identified their nodal pravara rishi as the gotra, which is how most people today know them. In addition, in ancient times the custom was for non-brahmins to state the gotra & lineage of their family priest when performing religious rituals, and ended up adopting them.
The traditional practice was for Brahmins to declare their exact line of descent alongside the gotra, by naming five noteworthy ancestors (pravara rishis), starting from the top level saptarishi ancestor gotra(one of seven). Some of the saptarishis famously didn't get along, and their descendants are considered incompatible matches for marriage. When considering a marriage alliance from a family with the same top level saptarishi gotra, it was considered acceptable if at least three of the five pravara rishis were different, ie, a distant branch of the family. As families lost their traditions, people identified their nodal pravara rishi as the gotra, which is how most people today know them. In addition, in ancient times the custom was for non-brahmins to state the gotra & lineage of their family priest when performing religious rituals, and ended up adopting them.
I suppose this was an ancient way to ensure genetic diversity and prevent pregnancy losses. There is already quite a bit of evidence that consanguinity leads to miscarriages [0].
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/jp2011115
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/jp2011115
Funnily enough, the strict endogamy among Indian caste groups actually leads to far less diversity. There have been many genetic studies on this from Dr. Lal's and Dr. Thangaraj's group at Center for Cellular and Molecular Biology.
> In practice, there really are several dozen gotras (at least among the Brahmins), if not hundreds.
> Some of the saptarishis famously didn't get along, and their descendants are considered incompatible matches for marriage.
I suppose this is different in Southern clans.
> Some of the saptarishis famously didn't get along, and their descendants are considered incompatible matches for marriage.
I suppose this is different in Southern clans.
> I suppose this is different in Southern clans.
This was true in the southern clans as well. The practice of lineage splitting is well documented. As for the concept of gotra incompatibility, its something your astrologer might bring up, and not something well known among the general public.
This was true in the southern clans as well. The practice of lineage splitting is well documented. As for the concept of gotra incompatibility, its something your astrologer might bring up, and not something well known among the general public.
I know many people from Vasishta clan married to Vishvamitra clan, so I guess it doesn't matter these days.
Gotras are purely patrilineal, the mothers gotra doesn’t get passed down to the child.
There are other “rules” as well. But it really depends on the region and community.
There are some communities (for eg. Nairs) who traditionally have matrilineal systems.
So no generic rules for all of India.
This is all gradually breaking down with urbanization. So it’s not some sort of static thing either.
There are other “rules” as well. But it really depends on the region and community.
There are some communities (for eg. Nairs) who traditionally have matrilineal systems.
So no generic rules for all of India.
This is all gradually breaking down with urbanization. So it’s not some sort of static thing either.
Gotra is limited to only certain number of paternal lineages. In South India I see only tracking of one paternal lineage (generally consisting of 2-3 r'shis).
From what I recall, some temples / priests / elders keep a record of this within a community. And yeah, that is one of the reasons why marrying outside your community, with or without your parent's consent, is such a big deal in India (not just with the Hindus who subscribe to gotras but also among other communities, as the emphasis on arranged marriages are often on "shared values" between the families. It's harder to determine what values an "outsider" or their family has, as it becomes harder to use your social circles to investigate them. )
> Unless there are thousands of gotras, it must be very common for a prospective bride and groom to overlap.
The brahmin communities have a handful of gothras as I understand it (7 or 8, depending on who you ask).
The relationship matrix is resolved by only tracking a single side of the family tree and making first cousins who are able to marry each other without complication on this topic. So it doesn't directly fix the inbreeding within insular communities, though that was its intention.
My father-in-law spent quite some time investigating this, as my clan is matrilineal in ancestry (still very patriarchal, just brother-sister family unit instead of husband-wife) with a history of cross-marriages from patrilineal men for treaties/allies.
Completely pointless pedigree certificate, felt like I was being picked for breeding instead of an equal partnership.
A dive into this sort of discrimination almost left me wondering why something with political eugenics didn't come out of India. Fears which I still have for the 2040s seeing the CAA and NRC.
The brahmin communities have a handful of gothras as I understand it (7 or 8, depending on who you ask).
The relationship matrix is resolved by only tracking a single side of the family tree and making first cousins who are able to marry each other without complication on this topic. So it doesn't directly fix the inbreeding within insular communities, though that was its intention.
My father-in-law spent quite some time investigating this, as my clan is matrilineal in ancestry (still very patriarchal, just brother-sister family unit instead of husband-wife) with a history of cross-marriages from patrilineal men for treaties/allies.
Completely pointless pedigree certificate, felt like I was being picked for breeding instead of an equal partnership.
A dive into this sort of discrimination almost left me wondering why something with political eugenics didn't come out of India. Fears which I still have for the 2040s seeing the CAA and NRC.
That is a misleading article. Nobody spends that much amount of money on a single "date night" or "movie night" unless you are an elite. This article is again a low effort attempt to sell western people news that fits their narrow knowledge base.
Or you know, she could have been a wage worker for an elite. There is literally no price variation in India for someone who earns $50k or $20k or $500k - the maids ultimately earn the same regardless of the net worth of their employer. The only differentiators are the perks (staying within the apartment/building, free food, etc).
To give an anecdote, a friend's cousin is a partner at a consulting firm in Delhi, yet I was surprised to find out that their live-in help was paid 12k INR a month. It's not about them being stingy, it's just the market rate (or in this case, above market).
To give an anecdote, a friend's cousin is a partner at a consulting firm in Delhi, yet I was surprised to find out that their live-in help was paid 12k INR a month. It's not about them being stingy, it's just the market rate (or in this case, above market).
My first thought when reading this was hoping that these types of articles will reduce the comments I see on the internet that try and compare Delhi/Mumbai squalor to LA.
Then I read the first comment on this HN thread, which is directly comparing this to Toronto.
So either Westerners don't realize that people in these places are making less money in a month than the middle class person can expect to spend in an average afternoon, or there is some intermediate step of "let me compare this to what I know" that is happening. It's not really enough...you should experience it for yourself (there's also other issues, such as people claiming there's more homeless in LA than in Delhi, not realizing that a lot of effectively homeless people in India aren't classified as such - it'd be like saying you're not homeless in LA if you have a tent or a sleeping bag).
Reminds me of learning a new language, where beginners try to formulate thoughts in their native tongue and produce a direct translation, whereas those who are fluent can skip that step completely.
Then I read the first comment on this HN thread, which is directly comparing this to Toronto.
So either Westerners don't realize that people in these places are making less money in a month than the middle class person can expect to spend in an average afternoon, or there is some intermediate step of "let me compare this to what I know" that is happening. It's not really enough...you should experience it for yourself (there's also other issues, such as people claiming there's more homeless in LA than in Delhi, not realizing that a lot of effectively homeless people in India aren't classified as such - it'd be like saying you're not homeless in LA if you have a tent or a sleeping bag).
Reminds me of learning a new language, where beginners try to formulate thoughts in their native tongue and produce a direct translation, whereas those who are fluent can skip that step completely.
Many years ago, I read of a study that measured poverty not in terms of income but with metrics like "How many meals per day do you get?" and "What kind of shelter do you have?" It concluded that less than 1/2 of one percent of Americans were poor by standards in India.
When I've repeated that online, on at least one occasion someone who lived in India got mad at me for supposedly promoting negative stereotypes and told me my info was out of date. They seemed outraged.
I spent some years homeless in America. I'm still quite poor and frustrated with that fact.
I don't know what the solution is for trying to promote better cross cultural understanding. I try to focus on how to get the word out in the US that lack of appropriate housing supply is a primary root cause of homelessness in this country. It's shocking how many people insist that lack of affordable housing has nothing to do with homelessness and homeless people are all just crazies and junkies who don't want to get better.
When I've repeated that online, on at least one occasion someone who lived in India got mad at me for supposedly promoting negative stereotypes and told me my info was out of date. They seemed outraged.
I spent some years homeless in America. I'm still quite poor and frustrated with that fact.
I don't know what the solution is for trying to promote better cross cultural understanding. I try to focus on how to get the word out in the US that lack of appropriate housing supply is a primary root cause of homelessness in this country. It's shocking how many people insist that lack of affordable housing has nothing to do with homelessness and homeless people are all just crazies and junkies who don't want to get better.
Grew up in india, spent my twenties in the US, and now back in India. I can give you some potential explanation:
Even though the poor and lower middle class make abjectly low amounts of money, the upper middle class and the rich actually make money comparable to most developed countries. This is reflected in the real estate prices (Chennai, the fourth largest city, has prices comparable to Brooklyn). I can make 200k UsD a year and call myself upper middle class and no one will bat an eye.
While you can kinda isolate yourself from the real poverty, you’re never fully shielded from it. You will see people struggling if you live in India. Then, the only way you can convince yourself you’re not an evil person is by playing some Mental gymnastics. Thus you have people who refuse to accept how outrageous the wealth disparity in India is. Combine this with this misplaced cultural pride that seems comparatively excessive here, and you get people who become belligerent if you mention most Indians are poorer than dirt.
Even though the poor and lower middle class make abjectly low amounts of money, the upper middle class and the rich actually make money comparable to most developed countries. This is reflected in the real estate prices (Chennai, the fourth largest city, has prices comparable to Brooklyn). I can make 200k UsD a year and call myself upper middle class and no one will bat an eye.
While you can kinda isolate yourself from the real poverty, you’re never fully shielded from it. You will see people struggling if you live in India. Then, the only way you can convince yourself you’re not an evil person is by playing some Mental gymnastics. Thus you have people who refuse to accept how outrageous the wealth disparity in India is. Combine this with this misplaced cultural pride that seems comparatively excessive here, and you get people who become belligerent if you mention most Indians are poorer than dirt.
Then, the only way you can convince yourself you’re not an evil person is by playing some Mental gymnastics.
Does benefiting from severe inequality imply amorality? I don't see any inherent contradiction between personal financial success and supporting policies intended to uplift the poor (similarly to how some uber-wealthy in America publicly advocate for more progressive taxation).
Does benefiting from severe inequality imply amorality? I don't see any inherent contradiction between personal financial success and supporting policies intended to uplift the poor (similarly to how some uber-wealthy in America publicly advocate for more progressive taxation).
What do policies have to do with anything? This isn't global warming where the big deal is only in the aggregate.
That there are X million people you cant help even if you do all you can doesn't undermine the fact that if you make hundreds of thousands of dollars you could change the lives of many forever with not much of a lifestyle hit for yourself.
That there are X million people you cant help even if you do all you can doesn't undermine the fact that if you make hundreds of thousands of dollars you could change the lives of many forever with not much of a lifestyle hit for yourself.
So, just to be clear, your position is that any >=middle-class person who doesn't donate the majority of their wealth to charity is "evil"?
What do policies have to do with anything?
I can't tell if this is a serious question. Policies are how we effect change at scale. Relying on countless people to each independently make the decision to follow your particular moral values isn't a practical solution for addressing inequality throughout the entire country of India.
What do policies have to do with anything?
I can't tell if this is a serious question. Policies are how we effect change at scale. Relying on countless people to each independently make the decision to follow your particular moral values isn't a practical solution for addressing inequality throughout the entire country of India.
I don't want to speak for the person you're replying to, but..
> any >=middle-class person who doesn't donate the majority of their wealth to charity is "evil"?
That is pretty much Peter Singer's position (who incidentally is Australian, and it appears the person you're replying to may be also), who is if nothing else at least providing serious and cogent arguments for such a position. You may disagree, but he argues fairly respectably, IMO.
I'm a bit on the fence on that one, but I think there's something to be said for the fact that there is at least some immorality happening if a person worth 100.000$ walks past someone worth 0$ and doesn't help them out at least a little.
If you're curious about this line of reasoning, here's a nice introduction: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/giving...
> any >=middle-class person who doesn't donate the majority of their wealth to charity is "evil"?
That is pretty much Peter Singer's position (who incidentally is Australian, and it appears the person you're replying to may be also), who is if nothing else at least providing serious and cogent arguments for such a position. You may disagree, but he argues fairly respectably, IMO.
I'm a bit on the fence on that one, but I think there's something to be said for the fact that there is at least some immorality happening if a person worth 100.000$ walks past someone worth 0$ and doesn't help them out at least a little.
If you're curious about this line of reasoning, here's a nice introduction: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/giving...
I think that if someone is well-off and yet they see a lot of people around them that aren't, it's pretty natural to feel uncomfortable about that. Like "why do I live in a house and not in a tent?" Luck plays a role, but that's not a satisfying answer. One way people deal with it is to construct a narrative to explain their success -- maybe they're smarter, or worked harder, or avoided the personal vices they see among the poor.
Those narratives aren't necessarily entirely wrong, and I don't see those people as particularly evil, they just might have a few blind spots. For instance, they might not realize that even though they worked hard for their success, they also had a lot of second chances when they failed and they might not have had some of the roadblocks to success that others had, such as serious health problems, or a bad family situation, or prejudice, or violence, or lack of education, or lack of leisure time.
I've never been to Delhi, so this is just based on my own observation of people in the United States. I assume this is probably one of those aspects of human nature that are more-or-less the same everywhere.
Those narratives aren't necessarily entirely wrong, and I don't see those people as particularly evil, they just might have a few blind spots. For instance, they might not realize that even though they worked hard for their success, they also had a lot of second chances when they failed and they might not have had some of the roadblocks to success that others had, such as serious health problems, or a bad family situation, or prejudice, or violence, or lack of education, or lack of leisure time.
I've never been to Delhi, so this is just based on my own observation of people in the United States. I assume this is probably one of those aspects of human nature that are more-or-less the same everywhere.
The upper middle class does not nearly make money comparable to most developed countries. If you make 200k USD a year in India you are strictly rich. I make 10x less than you and I'm still upper middle class. The average rent in a place like Anna Nagar in Chennai (which is probably one of the most expensive places to live) is about 50,000 INR a month or ~700$ for a 3 bhk apartment. In comparison, the average rent in Brooklyn for a 1 bedroom apartment is around 2000$ a month. Just wanted to clarify on the numbers, I do agree with everything else you've said.
The median price for a home in Brooklyn in 900k, which translates to 6 crores. That’s definitely not a median price in central Chennai but it’s also not very far away. There’s also a significantly larger discrepancy between rent and home prices in India so that’s there.
> Even though the poor and lower middle class make abjectly low amounts of money, the upper middle class and the rich actually make money comparable to most developed countries. This is reflected in the real estate prices (Chennai, the fourth largest city, has prices comparable to Brooklyn). I can make 200k UsD a year and call myself upper middle class and no one will bat an eye.
So true. People have very wrong expectation when "hiring poor Indians." India been a player in software development field for decades. People there know well how do they pay people in the US, not to say that most higher education in India automatically assumes some passable English.
The upper part of India society lives with one leg in the Western world, others not so much.
Mumbai may pass some times to a glass skyscraper city of the West, but drive 100km out of the city, and the reality will hit you like a truck.
So true. People have very wrong expectation when "hiring poor Indians." India been a player in software development field for decades. People there know well how do they pay people in the US, not to say that most higher education in India automatically assumes some passable English.
The upper part of India society lives with one leg in the Western world, others not so much.
Mumbai may pass some times to a glass skyscraper city of the West, but drive 100km out of the city, and the reality will hit you like a truck.
> Grew up in india, spent my twenties in the US, and now back in India. I can give you some potential explanation:
What did make you to move back to India?
What did make you to move back to India?
> I don't know what the solution is for trying to promote better cross cultural understanding.
I think that's just it: trying to promote better cross cultural understanding. That's something I tried with the GP here, but I could probably write up an article to be linked to in such discussions.
> metrics like "How many meals per day do you get?" and "What kind of shelter do you have?"
I think this is a good thought, a focus on qualitative differences in lived experience using quantifiable metrics. With that approach you're less likely to offend rather than inform. Might be best to skip the "less than 1/2 of one percent of Americans were poor by standards in India" since it seems to suggest that American poverty isn't "real" poverty.
I would even go so far as to say that communicating the cultural context is far more important than underlining the economics, the former of which TFA is attempting to do.
I think that's just it: trying to promote better cross cultural understanding. That's something I tried with the GP here, but I could probably write up an article to be linked to in such discussions.
> metrics like "How many meals per day do you get?" and "What kind of shelter do you have?"
I think this is a good thought, a focus on qualitative differences in lived experience using quantifiable metrics. With that approach you're less likely to offend rather than inform. Might be best to skip the "less than 1/2 of one percent of Americans were poor by standards in India" since it seems to suggest that American poverty isn't "real" poverty.
I would even go so far as to say that communicating the cultural context is far more important than underlining the economics, the former of which TFA is attempting to do.
I'm a former military wife. Just trying to explain how military life is different to other Americans was insanely hard.
I lived in the same country. I used the same currency. I spoke the same language. Yet my life was not like that of civilians I knew and their underlying assumptions and mine that informed our decisions just did not match up to such a degree that I eventually stopped trying to explain my life choices even to people quite close to me who simply did not get the context and that their decision-making matrix and mine were largely unrelated.
I wish you luck in trying to figure out how to do this.
I lived in the same country. I used the same currency. I spoke the same language. Yet my life was not like that of civilians I knew and their underlying assumptions and mine that informed our decisions just did not match up to such a degree that I eventually stopped trying to explain my life choices even to people quite close to me who simply did not get the context and that their decision-making matrix and mine were largely unrelated.
I wish you luck in trying to figure out how to do this.
Thanks...I think I'm going to give up before I even start. The gap is far wider than I had ever imagined.
It's not possible to make people understand. You can try it understand others, and some others can try to understand you, but you can't make someone's open their mind if they don't want to.
To help people understand something they've never experienced, stay within their own frame of reference. That's all they've got to work with, because they don't know what they haven't experienced.
To explain poverty to a middle class Californian, frame it in culture terms that are familiar, but which still reach the same class of emotional experience you want them to understand.
e.g.
Have you ever gone shopping at The Gap for jeans with a bunch of pals, and they take forever to decide which 12 pairs of jeans they're going to get, but you only take like 20 minutes because you can only afford 4 pairs? You know how that feels?
They'll catch on.
To explain poverty to a middle class Californian, frame it in culture terms that are familiar, but which still reach the same class of emotional experience you want them to understand.
e.g.
Have you ever gone shopping at The Gap for jeans with a bunch of pals, and they take forever to decide which 12 pairs of jeans they're going to get, but you only take like 20 minutes because you can only afford 4 pairs? You know how that feels?
They'll catch on.
Well written novels help...
[deleted]
That's interesting. Would you mind giving an example of one of these disjuncts? Some decision you made as a military wife that others did not understand?
I think the best example is actually from my divorce. A friend basically called me "stupid" for "trusting" my ex to pay me my support payments while on the phone and I basically politely hung up on her.
She was probably just worried sick about me because the stats for civilian Americans is abysmal. I think it's something like one third of men don't pay at all and one third only make partial payments, which routinely leaves women and their children in a real pickle. It can take months or years to get legal remedy, garnish his wages and get back payments -- if you get them at all.
But it doesn't work that way in the military. If he had stiffed me, I would have written his commanding officer and his wages would have been garnished post haste, much more quickly than what you typically see in the civilian world.
My friend apparently thought I was some naive little ninny who just didn't understand the cold, cruel world because I had such a sheltered existence as a homemaker. And that wasn't it at all. The rules were just different for me and I was in no danger of being left out in the cold like she was likely imagining was about to happen to me given how common that is in the civilian version of America.
She was probably just worried sick about me because the stats for civilian Americans is abysmal. I think it's something like one third of men don't pay at all and one third only make partial payments, which routinely leaves women and their children in a real pickle. It can take months or years to get legal remedy, garnish his wages and get back payments -- if you get them at all.
But it doesn't work that way in the military. If he had stiffed me, I would have written his commanding officer and his wages would have been garnished post haste, much more quickly than what you typically see in the civilian world.
My friend apparently thought I was some naive little ninny who just didn't understand the cold, cruel world because I had such a sheltered existence as a homemaker. And that wasn't it at all. The rules were just different for me and I was in no danger of being left out in the cold like she was likely imagining was about to happen to me given how common that is in the civilian version of America.
A similar trick is used by some landlords. No rent? Call the CO. Makes military tenants very reliable.
That street runs both ways. When asshole landlords were raising rent every three months on soldiers and their families, the general on the base threatened to build more housing and move everyone on base, gutting the local rental market.
The landlords quit their shit and cut a deal.
The landlords quit their shit and cut a deal.
Sounds fair TBH.
I'm obviously not Doreen, but I was a military brat and military myself and can relate some of what I saw. First off, there's a sense of impermanence to everything. Your best friend is often someone you will only know for ~3 years of your life. You have to meet people and become friendly with them quickly or you will have no social contacts outside your family.
If you were a military spouse, you may have had a job, but rarely a career. You move at the whim of your spouse's job (every few years) to places you don't control. You generally don't get to pick your neighbors or even your friends - you just adapt to the situation that constantly changes.
Spouses of military members that go on unaccompanied tours have it even worse. They are at home alone, often for months at a time. My anecdotal observations of Navy spouses, for example, was that cheating was a standard practice - not because the marriage was necessarily bad, but because they were so lonely. This is based on limited exposure (I was Air Force, both as a brat and active duty), so may not be as universally true as I observed.
This can all sound horrible, but it really wasn't. Just different. Different enough that sometimes it is hard to explain.
If you were a military spouse, you may have had a job, but rarely a career. You move at the whim of your spouse's job (every few years) to places you don't control. You generally don't get to pick your neighbors or even your friends - you just adapt to the situation that constantly changes.
Spouses of military members that go on unaccompanied tours have it even worse. They are at home alone, often for months at a time. My anecdotal observations of Navy spouses, for example, was that cheating was a standard practice - not because the marriage was necessarily bad, but because they were so lonely. This is based on limited exposure (I was Air Force, both as a brat and active duty), so may not be as universally true as I observed.
This can all sound horrible, but it really wasn't. Just different. Different enough that sometimes it is hard to explain.
[deleted]
The incentive structure in the military is completely different from normal American society. Imagine a parallel, "socialist" society that exists inside the U.S.A. That's the military in a nutshell.
It has its own government-run housing authority, its own government-run medical system, you don't always know where you will end up on your next tour, you may not be allowed to quit and leave the military when you would normally expect to under some circumstances, etc.
It has its own government-run housing authority, its own government-run medical system, you don't always know where you will end up on your next tour, you may not be allowed to quit and leave the military when you would normally expect to under some circumstances, etc.
[deleted]
> a parallel, "socialist" society that exists inside the U.S.A. That's the military in a nutshell.
Perfect description, which I find hilarious. It's the best large-scale example of socialism that actually works. But the Right won't admit it and the Left thinks it's hell.
Perfect description, which I find hilarious. It's the best large-scale example of socialism that actually works. But the Right won't admit it and the Left thinks it's hell.
India has lots of villages, slums and people in between having very poor material standards compared to Western countries. But people are also much more interconnected, rely on each other and find ways to get by. So to get that culture, you have to spend at least 6 months and really get to know what family values are, and how things tend to work out. It's very different than the lonely individualist countries. Many Indians actually move back home to be with family and friends!
So superficial analyses may just not be very recognizable to the population, because of very different value systems and nuances.
So superficial analyses may just not be very recognizable to the population, because of very different value systems and nuances.
That's very true, but I think it's possible to a) have a fact-based approach without being superficial, and b) communicate cultural context without having to plumb the depths of the human condition.
Were it necessary to cover the subtle nuances of Eastern and Western culture, it would be hard to get anywhere with prose. I think it's sufficient to convey enough information to demonstrate that the value systems and lived experiences are fundamentally different.
The goal is not to "level the playing field" in terms of where people are coming from, but to foster more meaningful discussions by explicitly taking context into account.
Were it necessary to cover the subtle nuances of Eastern and Western culture, it would be hard to get anywhere with prose. I think it's sufficient to convey enough information to demonstrate that the value systems and lived experiences are fundamentally different.
The goal is not to "level the playing field" in terms of where people are coming from, but to foster more meaningful discussions by explicitly taking context into account.
But it takes the plumbing the depths of the human condition to realize that we're not actually a that different, and that the fundamentals are the SAME. Airy eloquent prose may not have the same effect on the data driven as hard metrics, but comparing $20,000 (US) a year to the equivalent of $1 US a day, without capturing, in prose, that person in the US below the poverty line may be going hungry more days a week, and is more exposed to the elements, and more likely to be harrassed by police/others and more likely to die, is superficial.
Prose is what's needed to communicate effectively. Tables and charts simply can't do that by themselves. Even they need a legend and labels to be useful.
Prose is what's needed to communicate effectively. Tables and charts simply can't do that by themselves. Even they need a legend and labels to be useful.
Personally, that's the biggest lesson that I got from traveling in India. There's no question that people's living standard needs to be improved there, but I saw something that's lacking in a developed country (especially in the country I live): mutual help, or the "love your neighbor" mindset. I hope that tradition last long.
As someone who immigrated to the US from India, and was a 'stereotypical nerd' (being on HN duh) nosy neighbors seem nice on the outside but it can get old really quick. (Unless you're perfectly average for the community you live in). I much prefer making friends at work or other common interest places rather than neighbors or family who randomly happen to be next to you.
Tbh anyone nosy. Every time I visit my parents back home, I realize how exasperatingly nosy they are. They can't stick to minding their own business, and honestly it's something that they picked up with age - I guess to be a part of the general "community". And the amount of mental gymnastics they perform to analyze trivial mind-numbing stuff....
I guess it's something that's as ingrained in the Indian psyche as turmeric is in Indian cuisine.
I guess it's something that's as ingrained in the Indian psyche as turmeric is in Indian cuisine.
Same with age here in Europe. I believe they call it family, ugh! ;)
There’s someone on YouTube I sorta watched from time to time when the pandemic hit. He’s located in Venice beach, German in Venice. He was exposing the homeless issue and lack of government response.
Fast forward to now. The city offered everyone a free place to go and many took it. There were still a lot of people who refused. Now the garbage trucks and police evicted them. The garbage people packed a lot of stuff and put it into storage.
What’s your take? They were offered housing while they get back on their feet and chose not to take it.
Fast forward to now. The city offered everyone a free place to go and many took it. There were still a lot of people who refused. Now the garbage trucks and police evicted them. The garbage people packed a lot of stuff and put it into storage.
What’s your take? They were offered housing while they get back on their feet and chose not to take it.
First, some people took it and some did not. Yet you are trying to suggest we judge all homeless based on those who did not without knowing any further details. Damn them all to hell because some were offered housing and said "no."
A lot of services offered to the homeless are really terrible. I never stayed in a shelter while homeless. They have rules that make it just shy of being a form of prison, they tend to not be safe and they often have serious mold problems, among other things.
They also offered me no option to continue living as a family with my adult sons. Every service I spoke to urged me to take shelter as a single woman and to wait-list my sons for shelter as single adult men. There were zero programs to help us find shelter as a family of three blood relatives who still need each other to make our lives work.
I have done a lot of writing about homelessness and housing issues over the years. I could direct you to several of my blogs if you actually are sincerely interested in my take. I doubt that you are. That's likely a rhetorical device.
I am doing what I can to continue researching the issue, to provide useful information for small communities to use, etc. I don't know how to get traction and I don't know how to adequately monetize my work which makes it difficult to keep writing about it in hopes of other people benefiting because I need to eat and pay rent too. I'm certainly not independently wealthy.
A lot of services offered to the homeless are really terrible. I never stayed in a shelter while homeless. They have rules that make it just shy of being a form of prison, they tend to not be safe and they often have serious mold problems, among other things.
They also offered me no option to continue living as a family with my adult sons. Every service I spoke to urged me to take shelter as a single woman and to wait-list my sons for shelter as single adult men. There were zero programs to help us find shelter as a family of three blood relatives who still need each other to make our lives work.
I have done a lot of writing about homelessness and housing issues over the years. I could direct you to several of my blogs if you actually are sincerely interested in my take. I doubt that you are. That's likely a rhetorical device.
I am doing what I can to continue researching the issue, to provide useful information for small communities to use, etc. I don't know how to get traction and I don't know how to adequately monetize my work which makes it difficult to keep writing about it in hopes of other people benefiting because I need to eat and pay rent too. I'm certainly not independently wealthy.
I’ve done outreach and volunteer work before. Not sure how you interpreted my reply but it was not a negative question.
These topics are of interest to me.
These topics are of interest to me.
I took it as negative because you closed with this:
They were offered housing while they get back on their feet and chose not to take it.
It's full of implicit accusation that the homeless are difficult, uncooperative, causing their own problems and you can't help them because they are irrational pains in the butt.
I interpreted it that way in part because many homeless services are so bad they help keep the problem alive rather than helping to solve it.
As just one example: Most homeless people have serious health issues. It's an underlying cause of their financial problems and a barrier to employment.
But if you go to a soup kitchen, you are exposed to other sick people, plus cigarette smoke and marijuana smoke. I eventually quit going to soup kitchens and just worked at finding other ways to keep myself fed because my health issues are my number one problem making my life not work, so anything that makes it harder for me to take care of my health is a very serious problem.
I think we should lower the barrier to food stamps in the US. It's a good program that allows you to access food from normal middle class venues which are actually clean etc. I think we should do all we can to cut the bureaucratic costs and as much as humanly possible say "If you want food stamps, here you go" without asking people to prove they need them.
But I don't expect anything like that will ever happen. Talk of UBI appears to be code for "And now rich people can say Shut up. You are getting a check, you ingrate." rather than a genuine attempt to give meaningful relief to poor Americans.
Cutting a check is an easy answer to a hard problem, so likely won't solve anything.
I've listed my blogs elsewhere in another comment if you genuinely want to know more about what I think about homelessness, housing issues and community development.
They were offered housing while they get back on their feet and chose not to take it.
It's full of implicit accusation that the homeless are difficult, uncooperative, causing their own problems and you can't help them because they are irrational pains in the butt.
I interpreted it that way in part because many homeless services are so bad they help keep the problem alive rather than helping to solve it.
As just one example: Most homeless people have serious health issues. It's an underlying cause of their financial problems and a barrier to employment.
But if you go to a soup kitchen, you are exposed to other sick people, plus cigarette smoke and marijuana smoke. I eventually quit going to soup kitchens and just worked at finding other ways to keep myself fed because my health issues are my number one problem making my life not work, so anything that makes it harder for me to take care of my health is a very serious problem.
I think we should lower the barrier to food stamps in the US. It's a good program that allows you to access food from normal middle class venues which are actually clean etc. I think we should do all we can to cut the bureaucratic costs and as much as humanly possible say "If you want food stamps, here you go" without asking people to prove they need them.
But I don't expect anything like that will ever happen. Talk of UBI appears to be code for "And now rich people can say Shut up. You are getting a check, you ingrate." rather than a genuine attempt to give meaningful relief to poor Americans.
Cutting a check is an easy answer to a hard problem, so likely won't solve anything.
I've listed my blogs elsewhere in another comment if you genuinely want to know more about what I think about homelessness, housing issues and community development.
I am wondering why you think a basic income check wouldn’t help anything, because it seems to exactly solve the issue you describe. You sign up for the check (or a lot of the times, get it automatically from the IRS), get it regularly, and buy food with it. Very little bureaucracy compared with food stamps. I agree that one must not call those who rely on the checks entitled and refuse them any further assistance. I think the best thing is to do what we can to help people get back on their feet or at least in a stable situation, and a basic income check would be only one (albeit major) element of that.
I concede that distributing the checks may be difficult to those without stable mailing addresses. Then it may help to for example allow distribution in cash at the local post office.
The pandemic stimulus checks appear to have had a tremendous impact in reducing poverty, see https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-government-program-cu..., at least based on the studies there. I don’t know what the path is for this becoming regular policy, but the proposed child tax credit is projected to greatly decrease child poverty (although it has its own problems, it’s tough to get people to understand it exists and how to use it).
I concede that distributing the checks may be difficult to those without stable mailing addresses. Then it may help to for example allow distribution in cash at the local post office.
The pandemic stimulus checks appear to have had a tremendous impact in reducing poverty, see https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-government-program-cu..., at least based on the studies there. I don’t know what the path is for this becoming regular policy, but the proposed child tax credit is projected to greatly decrease child poverty (although it has its own problems, it’s tough to get people to understand it exists and how to use it).
The amount they are proposing for UBI wouldn't even cover rent in some parts of the US. Or it would barely cover rent in some places with little or nothing leftover. Online conversations about UBI frequently include comments to the effect that "If you had UBI, you could move someplace with lower rent."
It amounts to the latest version of putting homeless people on a bus and shipping them elsewhere so they stop being a local problem.
If rent is lower, it is probably because services are less available. If you need those services, such as specialized health care, telling you "Here's a check. Move someplace where it covers rent." is essentially a big fat fuck you.
We have torn down more than a million SROs and largely zoned out of existence the ability to build new Missing Middle Housing in mixed use, walkable neighborhoods. So you not only need to cover a high rent, you also need to have a car which is another huge expense and another big fat fuck you if you simply can't drive for some reason (as is true for me -- I am handicapped and no longer drive).
If we pass UBI, I believe it will only get harder to convince people to build SROs and Missing Middle Housing and walkable neighborhoods. That would be an important part of actually solving things.
We also need universal healthcare coverage in the US. Medical expenses are another huge hardship in the US.
If it were possible to find cheap housing, live without a car and get medical care without it being a hardship, that would make it possible to live on very little and then most people could make their lives work even if they only worked part-time. Currently, if you can't work full-time at a well paid job with benefits, you can't make your life work and we aren't creating enough jobs of that sort. We are increasingly moving to gig work which would be fine if you didn't need a job with good benefits to get medical care and if you could find a cheap place where living without a car really worked and you mostly can't arrange that in the US.
Throwing money at the problem doesn't fix those systemic issues and likely just makes people in power feel like they did something and don't have to feel guilty while they shirk on dealing with resolving the hard problems because actually fixing anything is hard work and painful and no one wants to actually do that if they can find an easy out like "I cut you check. Stop bothering me."
It amounts to the latest version of putting homeless people on a bus and shipping them elsewhere so they stop being a local problem.
If rent is lower, it is probably because services are less available. If you need those services, such as specialized health care, telling you "Here's a check. Move someplace where it covers rent." is essentially a big fat fuck you.
We have torn down more than a million SROs and largely zoned out of existence the ability to build new Missing Middle Housing in mixed use, walkable neighborhoods. So you not only need to cover a high rent, you also need to have a car which is another huge expense and another big fat fuck you if you simply can't drive for some reason (as is true for me -- I am handicapped and no longer drive).
If we pass UBI, I believe it will only get harder to convince people to build SROs and Missing Middle Housing and walkable neighborhoods. That would be an important part of actually solving things.
We also need universal healthcare coverage in the US. Medical expenses are another huge hardship in the US.
If it were possible to find cheap housing, live without a car and get medical care without it being a hardship, that would make it possible to live on very little and then most people could make their lives work even if they only worked part-time. Currently, if you can't work full-time at a well paid job with benefits, you can't make your life work and we aren't creating enough jobs of that sort. We are increasingly moving to gig work which would be fine if you didn't need a job with good benefits to get medical care and if you could find a cheap place where living without a car really worked and you mostly can't arrange that in the US.
Throwing money at the problem doesn't fix those systemic issues and likely just makes people in power feel like they did something and don't have to feel guilty while they shirk on dealing with resolving the hard problems because actually fixing anything is hard work and painful and no one wants to actually do that if they can find an easy out like "I cut you check. Stop bothering me."
I truly appreciate the insight you gave on zoning, housing, and healthcare. But I feel we are talking past each other, and you are attacking a strawman. I never implied UBI would be a catch all solution to the problem of homelessness. You are attacking the people who treat it as such when I said explicitly it is only one of several remedies.
I simply meant 1) it seems like a good solution for replacing food stamps, and it seems like you dropped this point entirely. I also think 2) it can be helpful in a wider sense. It is certainly easier to give people basic income checks than to rearchitect the entirety of American society away from cars, employer-based healthcare, and suburbia. While I agree with you that we perhaps should be on this more effective path, such a radical reorganization would take decades and massive political will that just isn’t there yet. Not even the New Deal, Great Society, or Eisenhower highway programs reached anything near this scope. UBI is something that has already had a test shot, and the data shows it has had a huge effect in reducing poverty during the pandemic. Unless I’m missing something big, it seems like a good way to start.
I simply meant 1) it seems like a good solution for replacing food stamps, and it seems like you dropped this point entirely. I also think 2) it can be helpful in a wider sense. It is certainly easier to give people basic income checks than to rearchitect the entirety of American society away from cars, employer-based healthcare, and suburbia. While I agree with you that we perhaps should be on this more effective path, such a radical reorganization would take decades and massive political will that just isn’t there yet. Not even the New Deal, Great Society, or Eisenhower highway programs reached anything near this scope. UBI is something that has already had a test shot, and the data shows it has had a huge effect in reducing poverty during the pandemic. Unless I’m missing something big, it seems like a good way to start.
The stimulus checks aren't actually a test of UBI. A global pandemic isn't business as usual by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm all for doing more for families with dependent children. You didn't ask me about that. You asked me why I think UBI doesn't work. I answered that.
My reply is not argumentative at all. It's just a reply to a question I was asked. That's all it is.
I'm all for doing more for families with dependent children. You didn't ask me about that. You asked me why I think UBI doesn't work. I answered that.
My reply is not argumentative at all. It's just a reply to a question I was asked. That's all it is.
Okay, I’m really trying to have a good-faith conversation about this, maybe my questions weren’t super clear. I am very interested in your opinion, as you seem to have experience and also have thought about this a lot (and I think many of us on HN appreciate the unique perspective you have to offer). I am just having a hard time seeing the difference between “reducing barriers to food stamps in the US”, as you said and “giving regular checks to people”. Could you elaborate what this would look like? And how is it possible for checks to “not solve anything” when they have demonstrated effectiveness in decreasing poverty in the real world? Is the pandemic really that different a situation in this case? Maybe your definition of a solution here is different than mine?
EDIT: And of course I also don’t want to burden you with endless questioning. If you have written about this I would be happy to read links. You just have a lot of websites and a lot of content so it is difficult for me to find your writing on this particular topic.
EDIT: And of course I also don’t want to burden you with endless questioning. If you have written about this I would be happy to read links. You just have a lot of websites and a lot of content so it is difficult for me to find your writing on this particular topic.
The stimulus checks aren't a test of UBI in part because we were told they were one time relief for an emergency, not an entitlement you can count on forever. People spend money differently if they are told "it's a one-time gift" versus "you can expect this for the rest of your life."
Historically, when you inject money into a system without increasing availability of goods and services, the result is inflation. If you start giving people UBI as a regular thing, the value of those checks will promptly go down due to inflation.
All welfare programs have a long history of failing to keep up with inflation. Even food stamps tend to last only about three weeks out of the month. I see no reason to believe UBI would somehow magically escape this pattern.
Making college loans readily available didn't fix things. It didn't mean that everyone had equal access to a college degree and now ordinary people could readily pursue the career of their dreams. Instead, it resulted in tuition skyrocketing and students having trouble getting a professional job with which to pay off their student loans, so people are waiting tables, putting off marriage, putting off homeownership, putting of having kids, putting off their lives to try to pay their loans.
I see no reason to think UBI would somehow go differently. I read that they tried something somewhere and the result was the landlords just raised rent and it didn't provide real relief for poor people. It just enriched the landlords.
Two-thirds of lottery winners are bankrupt within five years and they are at dramatically increased risk of being murdered, among myriad other terrible fates. The money doesn't solve their problems. They trade poor people problems for rich people problems and they don't have rich people coping skills. It often has very ugly results.
If, instead, you give people access to food and medical care and you make smaller homes in walkable neighborhoods where it's possible to live cheaply, then people can manage their problems and make their choices and find a path forward. People aren't likely to eat ten times what they need just because you are willing to pay for it. People aren't likely to get ten times as many x-rays and surgeries as they need just because you won't bill them for it.
Covering basic needs and guaranteeing you can eat and see a doctor is fundamentally different from cutting a check and telling people to spend it any way they want. It's an important form of social safety net that helps when things go wrong and isn't as readily abusable as cash is whether through innocent mistake, ignorance or even willful irresponsibility.
If you go nuts and spend like crazy and can still eat, well you might survive long enough to learn better. If you piss away all your UBI and then people say "Nope. No food stamps. We ended that program to fund UBI. Go starve." you've got a serious problem and so does society.
Historically, when you inject money into a system without increasing availability of goods and services, the result is inflation. If you start giving people UBI as a regular thing, the value of those checks will promptly go down due to inflation.
All welfare programs have a long history of failing to keep up with inflation. Even food stamps tend to last only about three weeks out of the month. I see no reason to believe UBI would somehow magically escape this pattern.
Making college loans readily available didn't fix things. It didn't mean that everyone had equal access to a college degree and now ordinary people could readily pursue the career of their dreams. Instead, it resulted in tuition skyrocketing and students having trouble getting a professional job with which to pay off their student loans, so people are waiting tables, putting off marriage, putting off homeownership, putting of having kids, putting off their lives to try to pay their loans.
I see no reason to think UBI would somehow go differently. I read that they tried something somewhere and the result was the landlords just raised rent and it didn't provide real relief for poor people. It just enriched the landlords.
Two-thirds of lottery winners are bankrupt within five years and they are at dramatically increased risk of being murdered, among myriad other terrible fates. The money doesn't solve their problems. They trade poor people problems for rich people problems and they don't have rich people coping skills. It often has very ugly results.
If, instead, you give people access to food and medical care and you make smaller homes in walkable neighborhoods where it's possible to live cheaply, then people can manage their problems and make their choices and find a path forward. People aren't likely to eat ten times what they need just because you are willing to pay for it. People aren't likely to get ten times as many x-rays and surgeries as they need just because you won't bill them for it.
Covering basic needs and guaranteeing you can eat and see a doctor is fundamentally different from cutting a check and telling people to spend it any way they want. It's an important form of social safety net that helps when things go wrong and isn't as readily abusable as cash is whether through innocent mistake, ignorance or even willful irresponsibility.
If you go nuts and spend like crazy and can still eat, well you might survive long enough to learn better. If you piss away all your UBI and then people say "Nope. No food stamps. We ended that program to fund UBI. Go starve." you've got a serious problem and so does society.
Doreen,
I only asked the question because I wanted your input from your experience. Most of the people who didn’t want to leave were in various stages of addiction and alcoholism. Addiction is something I know about from my life. Not a fan of UBI. I worked endless hours in the Restaurant industry until I was 27 and got into IT and software development. Not trying to compare to your situation.
Food stamps and health care assistance should absolutely be raised. I have family who struggle with both costs.
Thank you for your blogs and your time.
I only asked the question because I wanted your input from your experience. Most of the people who didn’t want to leave were in various stages of addiction and alcoholism. Addiction is something I know about from my life. Not a fan of UBI. I worked endless hours in the Restaurant industry until I was 27 and got into IT and software development. Not trying to compare to your situation.
Food stamps and health care assistance should absolutely be raised. I have family who struggle with both costs.
Thank you for your blogs and your time.
Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult. Sometimes people just have incompatible communication styles and it doesn't go well. (Or it just doesn't go well. Because life.)
Best.
Best.
I feel your pain - even though I've never been homeless, am male, from an entirely different country and demographic.
You are early, a good writer - and were able to convey the feeling of frustration and helplessness whilst maintaining your dignity.
Could you perchance share the links to your blogposts on here?
I'm sure there are many on here who would like to help in some way if they can.
You are early, a good writer - and were able to convey the feeling of frustration and helplessness whilst maintaining your dignity.
Could you perchance share the links to your blogposts on here?
I'm sure there are many on here who would like to help in some way if they can.
I'm interested in reading more of your writing. I worked with TANF recipients, many of whom were homeless (although few of them were unsheltered) and would like to hear more of your perspective because I have some exposure personally, and also because there is a serious problem with providing services to a large number of homeless people in my local area.
https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/
The sidebar links out to other things by me:
Write Pay, Pocket Puter, The Genevieve Files, What Helps The Homeless, San Diego Homeless Survival Guide, r/GigWorks
I also run r/CitizenPlanners and I'm the author or Eclogiselle.com and Project: SRO and The Butterfly Economy
http://www.eclogiselle.com/
http://projectsro.blogspot.com
http://butterflyeconomy.blogspot.com/
Things don't get updated as frequently as I would like in part because I don't have traction, so I don't get the kind of feedback I need to help me figure out what to talk about and because I don't get enough from tips and Patreon to focus on these projects instead of on trying to come up with enough money to survive, but I have done a lot of writing over the years.
That list is not comprehensive. It's just stuff that has more than a few posts and most of that stuff is still being actively developed, just slowly.
The sidebar links out to other things by me:
Write Pay, Pocket Puter, The Genevieve Files, What Helps The Homeless, San Diego Homeless Survival Guide, r/GigWorks
I also run r/CitizenPlanners and I'm the author or Eclogiselle.com and Project: SRO and The Butterfly Economy
http://www.eclogiselle.com/
http://projectsro.blogspot.com
http://butterflyeconomy.blogspot.com/
Things don't get updated as frequently as I would like in part because I don't have traction, so I don't get the kind of feedback I need to help me figure out what to talk about and because I don't get enough from tips and Patreon to focus on these projects instead of on trying to come up with enough money to survive, but I have done a lot of writing over the years.
That list is not comprehensive. It's just stuff that has more than a few posts and most of that stuff is still being actively developed, just slowly.
[deleted]
> What’s your take? They were offered housing while they get back on their feet and chose not to take it.
If you are, say, addicted to drugs, and your options are 'Live in sober housing' and 'Live in a tent', is it that surprising that #2 is more appealing?
And before someone suggest 'They should just stop using drugs'. I'd also like to point out that we don't have a miracle cure for addiction, and that there are millions of upper and upper-middle class people with every service and support network, both professional and personal, who are unable to deal with their drug problems. What chance does someone sleeping rough, with nobody in their lives who gives two shits about them, have?
If you are, say, addicted to drugs, and your options are 'Live in sober housing' and 'Live in a tent', is it that surprising that #2 is more appealing?
And before someone suggest 'They should just stop using drugs'. I'd also like to point out that we don't have a miracle cure for addiction, and that there are millions of upper and upper-middle class people with every service and support network, both professional and personal, who are unable to deal with their drug problems. What chance does someone sleeping rough, with nobody in their lives who gives two shits about them, have?
> It concluded that less than 1/2 of one percent of Americans were poor by standards in India.
I have no trouble believing that.
Same thing with the software industry really.
Source control has been mainstream since the 90's, build pipeline, automation and so on. But there are still shops around where they'll look at you funny for suggesting using git, that swear copy-pasting executables in a GUI is an ok way to upgrade and where the versions of languages used are at least old enough to have a legal drink. Not a lot, but they still exist. You won't find any overlap with what's going on in SV over there.
I have no trouble believing that.
Same thing with the software industry really.
Source control has been mainstream since the 90's, build pipeline, automation and so on. But there are still shops around where they'll look at you funny for suggesting using git, that swear copy-pasting executables in a GUI is an ok way to upgrade and where the versions of languages used are at least old enough to have a legal drink. Not a lot, but they still exist. You won't find any overlap with what's going on in SV over there.
> there's also other issues, such as people claiming there's more homeless in LA than in Delhi, not realizing that a lot of effectively homeless people in India aren't classified as such - it'd be like saying you're not homeless in LA if you have a tent or a sleeping bag
Sorry, I really cannot avoid going on a tangent because of this.
We seem to talk quite differently about informal housing if it's in the US or west vs. in a poorer country. We have non-profits push for sanitation in "slums" to improve health outcomes. Yet nobody is pushing for bathroom access or garbage removal in "homeless camps". I recently read about a homeless camp in a park in Oregon where the inhabitants cut down trees for materials and fire wood. When does it become a slum and we start treating it like we'd expect poorer countries to treat their slums?
Sorry, I really cannot avoid going on a tangent because of this.
We seem to talk quite differently about informal housing if it's in the US or west vs. in a poorer country. We have non-profits push for sanitation in "slums" to improve health outcomes. Yet nobody is pushing for bathroom access or garbage removal in "homeless camps". I recently read about a homeless camp in a park in Oregon where the inhabitants cut down trees for materials and fire wood. When does it become a slum and we start treating it like we'd expect poorer countries to treat their slums?
Interestingly, my family, coming from a recently-developed country, does compare them to slums.
At least in a slum like a favela you have sturdy cinderblock walls, a door that locks, some sort of a latrine situation solved, running water, and electricity, rather than a nylon tent and some debris on the sidewalk with no plumbing.
That can't be allowed in this country; such structures violate zoning laws and are not up to code.
Plenty of people live in tents in favelas and Indian slums as well.
The one in Portland has a couple dozen people living in it and has existed for maybe a year. It is routinely cleaned up/moved to different locations as well, hence a "camp". The population of a single slum in Mumbai (Dharavi) is over a million and has existed since the 1800s. Are you really concerned that they don't receive the same international attention?
I think the point being made is less about international attention, and how we (as in U.S. citizens) see our own poor compared to the poor other places. The impression, which I think has some truth to it, is that often our own poor are viewed much more unfavorably than we view the poor in other places. When it's the poor across the world, they get our sympathy, but when they're in our backyard we just want them gone.
It's not about which one is the greater humanitarian problem, it's about the hypocrisy.
It's not about which one is the greater humanitarian problem, it's about the hypocrisy.
it might go back to the american superiority complex; african and asian homeless people are different and distant enough to make us feel good about ourselves (poor foreigners), american homeless are “like us” so they shouldn’t have an excuse (just get a job like i did)
Slum buildings get addresses, are subject to zoning, have mail delivered to them, etc. It’s basically a matter of government recognition of the slum as something that won’t go away.
Though also, much of that recognition comes from the fact that people in a “homeless camp” don’t tend to think of their living arrangement as permanent or the space they occupy as theirs by right; whereas the people living in a slum, do.
If you live in a camp and you’re offered public housing, you’ll usually take it, because the camp wasn’t where you wanted to be.
If you’re living in a slum, you might hold out for city to just improve the slum, because your dwelling in the slum is your home, for better or for worse.
This is where things like the “container house” movement come into play: that demand is mostly driven by people who think of a slum as their permanent home, who want options for improving their dwelling in that slum into something they can be proud of.
Though also, much of that recognition comes from the fact that people in a “homeless camp” don’t tend to think of their living arrangement as permanent or the space they occupy as theirs by right; whereas the people living in a slum, do.
If you live in a camp and you’re offered public housing, you’ll usually take it, because the camp wasn’t where you wanted to be.
If you’re living in a slum, you might hold out for city to just improve the slum, because your dwelling in the slum is your home, for better or for worse.
This is where things like the “container house” movement come into play: that demand is mostly driven by people who think of a slum as their permanent home, who want options for improving their dwelling in that slum into something they can be proud of.
In America, slums and informal housing is destroyed by the city government. See LA's Echo Park for a recent example https://abcnews.go.com/US/police-protesters-clash-sweep-echo...
We have 350m people, 0.5m homeless and lack the political will to build more housing. They are expected to stay out of sight or the municipality will destroy their shelter and often trash their belongings.
Humanity is more cost effective, but doesn't allow us to moralize https://scoop.me/housing-first-finland-homelessness/
/rant
We have 350m people, 0.5m homeless and lack the political will to build more housing. They are expected to stay out of sight or the municipality will destroy their shelter and often trash their belongings.
Humanity is more cost effective, but doesn't allow us to moralize https://scoop.me/housing-first-finland-homelessness/
/rant
I think there’s a little more nuance to what happened in echo park. Echo Park lake has always had some homeless people living there, but it was nowhere close to 200 prepandemic. There was also some attempt to relocate everyone, it’s the city of LA so obviously no one really trusted them. But it’s weird to me see a public park that’s meant to be used by everyone taken over and then when it’s taken back. LA is destroying informal housing?
> it’s weird to me see a public park that’s meant to be used by everyone taken over
That's what a majority of urban poor in India live on - public/unclaimed land (i.e. informal housing). They're not counted as homeless as a result, unlike in LA.
That's how LA can appear to have a comparatively larger homeless population, even if it's a lot smaller in reality.
In India this type of housing is illegal and can be destroyed by the government, but that rarely happens because the situation can be leveraged for votes (there's a lot of poor people).
Yay democracy.
That's what a majority of urban poor in India live on - public/unclaimed land (i.e. informal housing). They're not counted as homeless as a result, unlike in LA.
That's how LA can appear to have a comparatively larger homeless population, even if it's a lot smaller in reality.
In India this type of housing is illegal and can be destroyed by the government, but that rarely happens because the situation can be leveraged for votes (there's a lot of poor people).
Yay democracy.
I'm hesitant to call the slum population "homeless". We have people in the parks, footpaths too, and that's very different from people living in many of these slums.
Here are a few facts: some of these slums are 100+ yrs old. A lot of them have "permanent" homes, something lot harder to uproot than tents. And lastly, if the government attempted to destroy them, it won't be just poor people, almost entire society will be outraged. Something similar happened here in Dhaka.
Here are a few facts: some of these slums are 100+ yrs old. A lot of them have "permanent" homes, something lot harder to uproot than tents. And lastly, if the government attempted to destroy them, it won't be just poor people, almost entire society will be outraged. Something similar happened here in Dhaka.
That they are 100+ years old doesn’t change the fact that that they remain illegal (and thus available for political leverage).
>but that rarely happens because the situation can be leveraged for votes (there's a lot of poor people)
There's a massive difference hidden in that statement alone. Here the politicians just assume those people aren't voting.
There's a massive difference hidden in that statement alone. Here the politicians just assume those people aren't voting.
Note that Indian people are suffering way more than than their western counterparts. The homeless in US lives a considerably better life than Indian homeless.
This is not justifying one or the other. But if one always start with humanity as one's subject of discussion, than there probably is no meaningful progress to be made at all.
This is not justifying one or the other. But if one always start with humanity as one's subject of discussion, than there probably is no meaningful progress to be made at all.
Can you explain how it's better in the US? Seems to me like it's pretty hard to get worse than sleeping on the pavement and eating out of the trash.
I'd say that it being your life from birth to death is worse and your parents and grandparents likely suffering the same back who knows how far.
[deleted]
It’s not about building more housing. There is enough housing to house everyone in the US and then some.
Homelessness is not just about finding/funding a home. You need food and transportation for a job. If the solution were as simple as throwing money at the homeless, California would have long ago solved their homelessness issue.
Homelessness is not just about finding/funding a home. You need food and transportation for a job. If the solution were as simple as throwing money at the homeless, California would have long ago solved their homelessness issue.
My experiences with homeless people in California are very limited to my trip there 10 years ago. I did have a really good conversation with someone giving me some tips about SF for a dollar, and I was robbed by someone else while walking home late at night.
Neither of those guys seemed mentally ill, but if my own country is anything to go by, a lot of these people have serious mental issues to deal with, and sitting them in a flat isn't gonna solve the underlying issues.
One of my best friends is a social worker for re-integration of homeless people, and getting them a flat is actually the very first step. A particularly illuminating example he told me about is that he often has problems with landlords, because the people he is trying to house do not shit in the toilet, but will do so in the hallway or somewhere else on the property.
There's a lot of work necessary from social workers, psychologists and doctors to help people who were homeless for a longer preiod of time, and it has to be a longterm commitment.
Neither of those guys seemed mentally ill, but if my own country is anything to go by, a lot of these people have serious mental issues to deal with, and sitting them in a flat isn't gonna solve the underlying issues.
One of my best friends is a social worker for re-integration of homeless people, and getting them a flat is actually the very first step. A particularly illuminating example he told me about is that he often has problems with landlords, because the people he is trying to house do not shit in the toilet, but will do so in the hallway or somewhere else on the property.
There's a lot of work necessary from social workers, psychologists and doctors to help people who were homeless for a longer preiod of time, and it has to be a longterm commitment.
The ones who can't use a toilet are a handful, and will never get off the streets.
Most homeless I have known whom are homeless just want a piece of land, with a outhouse, and maybe some fire pits so they can cook.
They want a piece of land where cops don't ticket, or get harassed.
Homelessness is just going to get worse. It's time to open up available federal, state, and local land, to free camping.
I've given up on housing. It's too expensive, and comes with too many rules.
Most of these guys just want to pitch a tent, and live the rest of their short lives out with a bit of false dignity.
And the drug use?
I once heard a homeless guy say, if you had to crawl into Scothbroom, after a day of being harassed by cops, and looking for food; you might want a stiff drink too. Let's not forget about the amount of self-medicating going on either.
(I know it's easy to throw your hands up, and lump all of them together. They are all very different. There are some professional beggars out there too. I've noticed a lot of foreigners working sympathy beg. Foreigners with jobs. Every American homeless person I know would never think about begging if they had a roof over their heads.)
Most homeless I have known whom are homeless just want a piece of land, with a outhouse, and maybe some fire pits so they can cook.
They want a piece of land where cops don't ticket, or get harassed.
Homelessness is just going to get worse. It's time to open up available federal, state, and local land, to free camping.
I've given up on housing. It's too expensive, and comes with too many rules.
Most of these guys just want to pitch a tent, and live the rest of their short lives out with a bit of false dignity.
And the drug use?
I once heard a homeless guy say, if you had to crawl into Scothbroom, after a day of being harassed by cops, and looking for food; you might want a stiff drink too. Let's not forget about the amount of self-medicating going on either.
(I know it's easy to throw your hands up, and lump all of them together. They are all very different. There are some professional beggars out there too. I've noticed a lot of foreigners working sympathy beg. Foreigners with jobs. Every American homeless person I know would never think about begging if they had a roof over their heads.)
[deleted]
The vast majority of homeless people in the US are homeless for economic reasons[1], and not because of mental illness or addiction.
[1] https://nlchp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Homeless_Stats_...
[1] https://nlchp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Homeless_Stats_...
Homelessness is not just about finding/funding a home. You need food and transportation for a job.
In some sense, you are correct. We've torn down about a million SROs and largely zoned out of existence the ability to build Missing Middle Housing in mixed use, walkable neighborhoods.
This is a primary root cause of lack of affordable housing in the US. You need a car to get anywhere from the suburbs and it drives up the baseline cost of housing.
There are myriad other issues with our housing policies, but no it not just enough to build more housing, though studies show simply building more helps. It's also about building the right kind and we aren't doing that which is helping fuel various trends, such as living in RVs, the Tiny House movement and other alternatives people are pursuing in the face of cities simply not creating the kind of housing they need.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy
https://missingmiddlehousing.com/
In some sense, you are correct. We've torn down about a million SROs and largely zoned out of existence the ability to build Missing Middle Housing in mixed use, walkable neighborhoods.
This is a primary root cause of lack of affordable housing in the US. You need a car to get anywhere from the suburbs and it drives up the baseline cost of housing.
There are myriad other issues with our housing policies, but no it not just enough to build more housing, though studies show simply building more helps. It's also about building the right kind and we aren't doing that which is helping fuel various trends, such as living in RVs, the Tiny House movement and other alternatives people are pursuing in the face of cities simply not creating the kind of housing they need.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy
https://missingmiddlehousing.com/
> It’s not about building more housing.
It actually is. From: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/06/08/1003982733/squ...
> By the 1980s, homelessness emerged as a chronic issue. There were many factors, including the federal government deciding to slash the budget for affordable housing. By then the California state government had significantly cut taxes and gutted social programs, including for state-funded mental institutions, resulting in thousands of people with mental illnesses and other difficulties struggling to make it on their own.
> Yet the core reason for the crisis boils down to supply and demand for housing. As regions like the San Francisco Bay Area became magnets for highly paid professionals in the computer-driven economy, they failed to build enough new units to keep up with demand.
> A 2016 study by McKinsey Global Institute estimated that California needs 3.5 million new housing units by 2025 to deal with its chronic housing shortage. Yet new housing construction has only slowed since then, despite Gov. Gavin Newsom's campaign promise to lead an effort to produce those 3.5 million units. Even before the pandemic wrought havoc on the construction business, California was constructing only about 100,000 new homes per year, way below the minimum 180,000 per year that analysts say the state desperately needs.
It actually is. From: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/06/08/1003982733/squ...
> By the 1980s, homelessness emerged as a chronic issue. There were many factors, including the federal government deciding to slash the budget for affordable housing. By then the California state government had significantly cut taxes and gutted social programs, including for state-funded mental institutions, resulting in thousands of people with mental illnesses and other difficulties struggling to make it on their own.
> Yet the core reason for the crisis boils down to supply and demand for housing. As regions like the San Francisco Bay Area became magnets for highly paid professionals in the computer-driven economy, they failed to build enough new units to keep up with demand.
> A 2016 study by McKinsey Global Institute estimated that California needs 3.5 million new housing units by 2025 to deal with its chronic housing shortage. Yet new housing construction has only slowed since then, despite Gov. Gavin Newsom's campaign promise to lead an effort to produce those 3.5 million units. Even before the pandemic wrought havoc on the construction business, California was constructing only about 100,000 new homes per year, way below the minimum 180,000 per year that analysts say the state desperately needs.
> Gov. Gavin Newsom's campaign promise to lead an effort to produce those 3.5 million units.
He is leading an effort. Whether he's spending enough of his own political capital is another question. But one of the problems in California is that the state constitution guarantees municipalities "home rule". That means very little can be accomplished without local cooperation, including local zoning board cooperation. It's like federalism at the state level--the central government can ban practices relatively easily, but it can't force positive action, only coerce through tax revenue incentives, which has its own constitutional restrictions, not to mention political barriers.
California is a NIMBY paradise, legally speaking.
He is leading an effort. Whether he's spending enough of his own political capital is another question. But one of the problems in California is that the state constitution guarantees municipalities "home rule". That means very little can be accomplished without local cooperation, including local zoning board cooperation. It's like federalism at the state level--the central government can ban practices relatively easily, but it can't force positive action, only coerce through tax revenue incentives, which has its own constitutional restrictions, not to mention political barriers.
California is a NIMBY paradise, legally speaking.
> California is a NIMBY paradise, legally speaking.
100%
However the state has and can overrule cities. First ADUs were legalized and next, if SB9 passes, duplexes. It's baby steps, but it's possible and probably the only way forward.
100%
However the state has and can overrule cities. First ADUs were legalized and next, if SB9 passes, duplexes. It's baby steps, but it's possible and probably the only way forward.
In California, it initially was because Reagan closed mental institutions. We had the housing (the mental institutions). Also, housing back then was affordable. You can’t chalk it down to housing till close to the 2000s.
Now you have this toxic brew of people with mental issues, drug addicts, people with family issues, and economic issues all feeding into each other.
Housing is then only a start. Also, any city that gives homeless more services than other areas just attracts more homeless.
It is monstrously expensive. Look at what SF is spending and watch what happens when the COVID-19 funds and state IPO windfall run dry.
Both the left and the right are at fault. Some of these people need to be institutionalized. Cities need to be cleaned up. Housing should be provided. Shipping homeless to other cities is not cool.
No city is probably willing to pay what it truly costs. It is probably roughly how much we pay for the criminal justice system.
https://nicic.gov/assign-library-item-package-accordion/stat...
$146K per person for the criminal justice system and then multiply it by 2 or 3 for social services, mental health services, drug treatment, etc…
Roughly 250 billion a year. You need to make the underlying institutions more efficient but institutional capture has already occurred. In other words, in a few years it is more likely to be 500 billion a year and the problem would be just as bad.
Of course if you wanted to turn around the criminal justice system as well, then you immediately jump into the trillions.
Now you have this toxic brew of people with mental issues, drug addicts, people with family issues, and economic issues all feeding into each other.
Housing is then only a start. Also, any city that gives homeless more services than other areas just attracts more homeless.
It is monstrously expensive. Look at what SF is spending and watch what happens when the COVID-19 funds and state IPO windfall run dry.
Both the left and the right are at fault. Some of these people need to be institutionalized. Cities need to be cleaned up. Housing should be provided. Shipping homeless to other cities is not cool.
No city is probably willing to pay what it truly costs. It is probably roughly how much we pay for the criminal justice system.
https://nicic.gov/assign-library-item-package-accordion/stat...
$146K per person for the criminal justice system and then multiply it by 2 or 3 for social services, mental health services, drug treatment, etc…
Roughly 250 billion a year. You need to make the underlying institutions more efficient but institutional capture has already occurred. In other words, in a few years it is more likely to be 500 billion a year and the problem would be just as bad.
Of course if you wanted to turn around the criminal justice system as well, then you immediately jump into the trillions.
Did you actually read that comment about Toronto? He immediately prefaces it by saying it isn't in the same realm, but can relate because he's poor in his area as well.
I don't think that YOU realize that it is okay to relate to common feelings without being the most of that thing. The guy from Toronto doesn't have to be the most poor person in the most poor area in order to understand their feelings and talk about his.
You're gatekeeping being poor. What a weird thing to be elitist about.
I don't think that YOU realize that it is okay to relate to common feelings without being the most of that thing. The guy from Toronto doesn't have to be the most poor person in the most poor area in order to understand their feelings and talk about his.
You're gatekeeping being poor. What a weird thing to be elitist about.
[deleted]
> Did you actually read that comment about Toronto?
I did. Now that you have that information, perhaps you can actually read what I wrote.
I did. Now that you have that information, perhaps you can actually read what I wrote.
Sure.
> will reduce the comments I see on the internet that try and compare Delhi/Mumbai squalor to LA
You want to reduce comments comparing your city's poorness to another city's poorness.
> It's not really enough...you should experience it for yourself
You're saying I can't talk about poor areas I know about because they're not as poor as your city. That's gatekeeping being poor, plain as day. But more than that, it totally shuts down all conversation about why your city might be so poor. What is happening in your advanced poor city that isn't happening in other cities?
> will reduce the comments I see on the internet that try and compare Delhi/Mumbai squalor to LA
You want to reduce comments comparing your city's poorness to another city's poorness.
> It's not really enough...you should experience it for yourself
You're saying I can't talk about poor areas I know about because they're not as poor as your city. That's gatekeeping being poor, plain as day. But more than that, it totally shuts down all conversation about why your city might be so poor. What is happening in your advanced poor city that isn't happening in other cities?
> You want to reduce comments comparing your city's poorness to another city's poorness.
Not exactly. My bad, perhaps I should've provided an example of the kind of comment I'm talking about. I can't be arsed to go find that comment right now but it's about this video:
https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/video-of-man-eating-animal-...
The comment I'm talking about begins with (iirc) "The same thing is happening in LA..."
I don't know what chip you have on your shoulder about this "gatekeeping" but I wish you luck and hope that these things aren't happening in your cities, but of course you have the freedom to say that they are regardless.
I want to add something: I'm just against saying that these things are the same. I'm not saying anything about better or worse or that poverty isn't poverty. Given a choice I might rather be the average homeless person in India as opposed to LA, because at least I wouldn't be as likely to be there due to crippling addictions or mental illness.
That's why I compared it to languages, I don't think one established language is objectively better or worse than another, but direct translations rarely work well.
Not exactly. My bad, perhaps I should've provided an example of the kind of comment I'm talking about. I can't be arsed to go find that comment right now but it's about this video:
https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/video-of-man-eating-animal-...
The comment I'm talking about begins with (iirc) "The same thing is happening in LA..."
I don't know what chip you have on your shoulder about this "gatekeeping" but I wish you luck and hope that these things aren't happening in your cities, but of course you have the freedom to say that they are regardless.
I want to add something: I'm just against saying that these things are the same. I'm not saying anything about better or worse or that poverty isn't poverty. Given a choice I might rather be the average homeless person in India as opposed to LA, because at least I wouldn't be as likely to be there due to crippling addictions or mental illness.
That's why I compared it to languages, I don't think one established language is objectively better or worse than another, but direct translations rarely work well.
He is not gatekeeping being poor. He is pointing out that being poor in Toronto is not the same as being poor in Delhi.
You are trying to lump two things together into a category that are not even remotely comparable.
You are trying to lump two things together into a category that are not even remotely comparable.
There are two distinct experiences being discussed here: the experience of living in absolute poverty; and the experience of being down-and-out in a city you can't afford the cost-of-living of (i.e. "relative" poverty — the kind you could in theory get away from by "moving somewhere cheaper", but where for various reasons people don't tend to do that.)
Both the poor person in Toronto and the poor person in Delhi are in relative poverty, and have the lived experiences of relative poverty in common.
And also, the lived experiences of relative poverty are usually what someone means when they talk about "being poor." If you live in Dubai and make $50k/yr, but that doesn't even get you a crappy apartment two hours away from work, so you have to sleep in your car; and all your money is going to paying for groceries in a city that has to import all its food, and for car insurance that costs more than your car, so you don't have any savings — then you're poor, by most people's definition!
But of course, only the homeless person in Delhi experiences absolute poverty. They have two problems: relative poverty, and absolute poverty.
But the homeless person in Delhi will still commisserate with the homeless person in Toronto over the lived experiences and troubles that come from relative poverty — a problem they both share — even if the homeless person in Toronto doesn't know anything about what living with absolute poverty is like. They both still get their meagre possessions stolen if they stop watching them for a few minutes. They both sleep rough and have to actively think about how to not die when there's a heat wave or a cold spell. They both probably have a fungal infection somewhere on their bodies from their clothes being damp all the dang time. Etc.
Both the poor person in Toronto and the poor person in Delhi are in relative poverty, and have the lived experiences of relative poverty in common.
And also, the lived experiences of relative poverty are usually what someone means when they talk about "being poor." If you live in Dubai and make $50k/yr, but that doesn't even get you a crappy apartment two hours away from work, so you have to sleep in your car; and all your money is going to paying for groceries in a city that has to import all its food, and for car insurance that costs more than your car, so you don't have any savings — then you're poor, by most people's definition!
But of course, only the homeless person in Delhi experiences absolute poverty. They have two problems: relative poverty, and absolute poverty.
But the homeless person in Delhi will still commisserate with the homeless person in Toronto over the lived experiences and troubles that come from relative poverty — a problem they both share — even if the homeless person in Toronto doesn't know anything about what living with absolute poverty is like. They both still get their meagre possessions stolen if they stop watching them for a few minutes. They both sleep rough and have to actively think about how to not die when there's a heat wave or a cold spell. They both probably have a fungal infection somewhere on their bodies from their clothes being damp all the dang time. Etc.
> But the homeless person in Delhi will still commisserate with the homeless person in Toronto
Perhaps, but it's worth pointing out that these experiences are qualitatively different.
In India, being poor (especially if you're a certain caste) is tantamount to being non-human. You can be jailed, raped, mistreated, killed without consequence. Even the middle class is afforded little human dignity, the underclass have no real hope. The homeless in Toronto can still get some government services without bribery.
On top of that, there's the whole matter of caste which won't go away even if you win the lottery.
Someone else here is saying that dating poor in Switzerland is the same as in Delhi...that comes across as unbelievably tone deaf. Perhaps they missed the part in TFA where this couple has to date far away from the home. You can get beaten up or killed for being seen with the "wrong person" (in this case same gotra), and it does happen - quite often.
So it's not as simple as absolute and relative poverty in my opinion (though that is a good thought and is definitely part of it).
Risking another bad analogy, I would perhaps compare it to being the lowest class of worker in a Walmart versus being at the bottom of the org chart in Netflix. You can both commiserate on how bad your managers are, but your lived experiences are not remotely the same.
Perhaps, but it's worth pointing out that these experiences are qualitatively different.
In India, being poor (especially if you're a certain caste) is tantamount to being non-human. You can be jailed, raped, mistreated, killed without consequence. Even the middle class is afforded little human dignity, the underclass have no real hope. The homeless in Toronto can still get some government services without bribery.
On top of that, there's the whole matter of caste which won't go away even if you win the lottery.
Someone else here is saying that dating poor in Switzerland is the same as in Delhi...that comes across as unbelievably tone deaf. Perhaps they missed the part in TFA where this couple has to date far away from the home. You can get beaten up or killed for being seen with the "wrong person" (in this case same gotra), and it does happen - quite often.
So it's not as simple as absolute and relative poverty in my opinion (though that is a good thought and is definitely part of it).
Risking another bad analogy, I would perhaps compare it to being the lowest class of worker in a Walmart versus being at the bottom of the org chart in Netflix. You can both commiserate on how bad your managers are, but your lived experiences are not remotely the same.
I feel like that's conflating yet a third kind of poverty: having no societal respectability. Having no social "credit." No https://en.bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/Whuffie .
Being in poverty but of a high caste in India, is pretty-standard "absolute poverty."
Meanwhile, being well-off but of a low caste in India, is more like being a recently-freed black slave in the ante-bellum southern US.
That experience is really nothing like absolute or relative poverty. It's its own kind of horrible. (It's an orthogonal poverty, one could say.)
It does lead to a vicious cycle that connects it to absolute/relative poverty, though, since having no societal respectability means people aren't willing to offer you any opportunities to better your situation, because they think badly of you and expect you to squander them.
But I would say it is nevertheless best to think of a low-caste homeless person in Delhi as having three distinct problems: relative poverty, absolute poverty, and poverty of societal-respectability.
I would note that, while a regular homeless person in Toronto might not know anything about the sheer inhumanity of being of a low caste in India, a drug-addicted homeless person working as a prostitute to feed their addiction would actually understand it somewhat. In both cases, for example, if someone in these groups gets murdered or otherwise wronged, the police don't even bother to investigate — so they have no access to justice. The low-caste homeless in Delhi and the crack-addicted streetwalker in Toronto would see the same looks on people's faces, and understand them to mean the same thing.
Being in poverty but of a high caste in India, is pretty-standard "absolute poverty."
Meanwhile, being well-off but of a low caste in India, is more like being a recently-freed black slave in the ante-bellum southern US.
That experience is really nothing like absolute or relative poverty. It's its own kind of horrible. (It's an orthogonal poverty, one could say.)
It does lead to a vicious cycle that connects it to absolute/relative poverty, though, since having no societal respectability means people aren't willing to offer you any opportunities to better your situation, because they think badly of you and expect you to squander them.
But I would say it is nevertheless best to think of a low-caste homeless person in Delhi as having three distinct problems: relative poverty, absolute poverty, and poverty of societal-respectability.
I would note that, while a regular homeless person in Toronto might not know anything about the sheer inhumanity of being of a low caste in India, a drug-addicted homeless person working as a prostitute to feed their addiction would actually understand it somewhat. In both cases, for example, if someone in these groups gets murdered or otherwise wronged, the police don't even bother to investigate — so they have no access to justice. The low-caste homeless in Delhi and the crack-addicted streetwalker in Toronto would see the same looks on people's faces, and understand them to mean the same thing.
I agree that the caste issues are orthogonal to the others and that these three kinds of poverty come close to encompassing the problem being discussed.
And if this were to be the complete picture, why can't it express the sheer inhumanity of being of a low caste in India?
Take the case of a "drug-addicted homeless person working as a prostitute to feed their addiction" in Toronto - this person arrived here by their own choices (some amount of agency), but you can be born into that situation (with the awareness that your children will follow the same path) in India. [0]
You can't worry about societal respectability when you have no basic human dignity. Perhaps that is a fourth kind of poverty.
[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2016/11/28/the-indian-cas...
And if this were to be the complete picture, why can't it express the sheer inhumanity of being of a low caste in India?
Take the case of a "drug-addicted homeless person working as a prostitute to feed their addiction" in Toronto - this person arrived here by their own choices (some amount of agency), but you can be born into that situation (with the awareness that your children will follow the same path) in India. [0]
You can't worry about societal respectability when you have no basic human dignity. Perhaps that is a fourth kind of poverty.
[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2016/11/28/the-indian-cas...
Very well constructed, logical response - whilst still being respectful.
It is this kind of robust but respectful exchange of viewpoints, that keeps me coming back to HN (and unfortunately, spending hours on the site!)
It is this kind of robust but respectful exchange of viewpoints, that keeps me coming back to HN (and unfortunately, spending hours on the site!)
> You can both commiserate on how bad your managers are
And that's all the person you were replying to was saying. You can have things in common to talk about, and also have things that are so different you can't even comprehend them.
And that's all the person you were replying to was saying. You can have things in common to talk about, and also have things that are so different you can't even comprehend them.
Minorities in Toronto definitely risk being jailed and mistreated without consequence.
Killed or raped, probably not.
Killed or raped, probably not.
I do agree with the broader point that they are not comparable, but one interesting caveat with Toronto is that come winter time, you're dead due to extreme cold and being homeless.
Why are these people seemingly just accepting their fate? What would it take for them to riot?
I grew up in Delhi (as may or may not be obvious from this thread), and once witnessed the aftermath of a home having been burgled.
The policeman on the scene summoned the watchman of the gated community and physically assaulted him (drawing blood), accusing him of having been negligent.
You can bet there was not a single consequence of this. The watchman was one of the underclass, and this is just what's expected.
I can't claim to know why things are like this, but there's rarely any justice for anyone in India, unless you're one of the elite or ultrarich. The judicial system is in shambles and the poor are just not afforded much humanity.
What do you think these people could do? Here is an example of what happens when the people try to change things in a "democracy" [0].
As a bonus, here are some choice videos of Indian politics (the second one is relevant to the story in footnote):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAOUmnSs5VA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5s4quyO2W0
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020–2021_Indian_farmers'_prot...
The policeman on the scene summoned the watchman of the gated community and physically assaulted him (drawing blood), accusing him of having been negligent.
You can bet there was not a single consequence of this. The watchman was one of the underclass, and this is just what's expected.
I can't claim to know why things are like this, but there's rarely any justice for anyone in India, unless you're one of the elite or ultrarich. The judicial system is in shambles and the poor are just not afforded much humanity.
What do you think these people could do? Here is an example of what happens when the people try to change things in a "democracy" [0].
As a bonus, here are some choice videos of Indian politics (the second one is relevant to the story in footnote):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAOUmnSs5VA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5s4quyO2W0
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020–2021_Indian_farmers'_prot...
I'm just wondering, if things are so bad, why are there no riots? Doesn't seem like there's much to lose tbh.
In my home country, they stormed the parliament and burned parts of it because the wrong party gained power (by fraudulent votes). If they were killing low class people, there would be riots, bombings and murders all around.
In my home country, they stormed the parliament and burned parts of it because the wrong party gained power (by fraudulent votes). If they were killing low class people, there would be riots, bombings and murders all around.
Because things aren't so bad.
I live in Bangladesh, now, and I don't think we're much improvement over India (except the caste problem). I once witnessed the aftermath of a policeman beaten by public because he assaulted a shopkeeper. So while people doesn't have much legal recourse, they aren't exactly powerless either.
Similarly rich & powerful evade justice, but I wouldn't go as far as saying "there's rarely any justice for anyone". The state may fail to provide justice, but people find their ways, and that sort of keeps the worst impulses of the powerful in check.
I live in Bangladesh, now, and I don't think we're much improvement over India (except the caste problem). I once witnessed the aftermath of a policeman beaten by public because he assaulted a shopkeeper. So while people doesn't have much legal recourse, they aren't exactly powerless either.
Similarly rich & powerful evade justice, but I wouldn't go as far as saying "there's rarely any justice for anyone". The state may fail to provide justice, but people find their ways, and that sort of keeps the worst impulses of the powerful in check.
[deleted]
Why was he pointing that out? It wasn't in question: everyone involved in this conversation knows how poor Delhi is on a factual level, since it's literally in the article we all read. Half the Toronto post wasn't even about poverty, it was about how the author would go on dates to far away parts of the city so his family wouldn't find out he was gay.
Why wouldn't they be comparable? They can be compared easily. You're comparing them right now.
Why wouldn't they be comparable? They can be compared easily. You're comparing them right now.
The article isn't even really about absolute squalor though (even if the subjects are destitute it's not about that) - by my reading anyway the focus is more 'trying to do things when you're among the poorest in your city', or, 'dating in Delhi when you're poor'.
I'm not from Delhi nor by any relevant measure poor, so perhaps I'm not allowed an opinion, but having just read the article, and not yet the Toronto comment, I find this thread surprising, and think an anecdote about being in a similar - similarly among the poorest in the city - situation in a different (richer, poorer, no matter) city would gel perfectly with the article.
I'm not from Delhi nor by any relevant measure poor, so perhaps I'm not allowed an opinion, but having just read the article, and not yet the Toronto comment, I find this thread surprising, and think an anecdote about being in a similar - similarly among the poorest in the city - situation in a different (richer, poorer, no matter) city would gel perfectly with the article.
They are totally comparable when it comes to dating since social status is relative. The poor person in Switzerland has shittier dating life than the middle income in Botswana even if he is making more in absolute terms.
Probably worse in Toronto where you could have food in your hands but die from the cold.
Those of us that grew up in the third world know how ridiculous Americans can be when it comes to these comparisons.
Anyone can get a minimum wage job and earn a relatively high living in the US. In the third world, you can work your ass off, be incredibly successful, and still live in squalor.
Anyone can get a minimum wage job and earn a relatively high living in the US. In the third world, you can work your ass off, be incredibly successful, and still live in squalor.
Not disagreeing with your overall point, but amount of money (based on currency exchange rates) is a bad way to compare poverty levels across different areas. It doesn't take into account cost of living which makes a huge difference.
I'm not talking about the American middle class in the comparison I make in the GP.
I actually have no idea what you're talking about, because I didn't mention any amount of money at all.
I actually have no idea what you're talking about, because I didn't mention any amount of money at all.
> So either Westerners don't realize that people in these places are making less money in a month than the middle class person can expect to spend in an average afternoon
You are making a comparison between two sums of money (the amount middle class people spend in an afternoon, and the amount poor people make in a month).
Obviously I misinterpreted who the middle class people were, but I doubt I'm the only one. I thought you meant middle class Westerners.
You are making a comparison between two sums of money (the amount middle class people spend in an afternoon, and the amount poor people make in a month).
Obviously I misinterpreted who the middle class people were, but I doubt I'm the only one. I thought you meant middle class Westerners.
i am still confused why that makes a difference. to me the comment only makes sense if the middle class in india is more affluent than the middle class in the US.
https://yourstory.com/2018/03/exactly-indias-middle-class-an...
https://yourstory.com/2018/03/exactly-indias-middle-class-an...
[deleted]
[deleted]
I read it the same way you did.
[deleted]
Except that cost of living is also pretty high in Indian metros (especially Delhi). This is why most of the residents live in slums: they can't afford permanent/legal housing. From the article:
> But nearly half of the city’s population lives in slums without basic services and facilities like drinking water, garbage disposal or a proper drainage system.
> But nearly half of the city’s population lives in slums without basic services and facilities like drinking water, garbage disposal or a proper drainage system.
Even with cost of living comparisons, an American making minimum wage can easily afford a mobile phone, particularly a cheap $25 phone.
In many parts of the world that mobile phone will require substantial budgeting over several months to afford.
In many parts of the world that mobile phone will require substantial budgeting over several months to afford.
> an American making minimum wage can easily afford a mobile phone, particularly a cheap $25 phone
It's probably worth noting that "easily" probably doesn't belong in there for a lot of people.
This is a really good read, if you're interested https://residentcontrarian.substack.com/p/on-the-experience-...
It's probably worth noting that "easily" probably doesn't belong in there for a lot of people.
This is a really good read, if you're interested https://residentcontrarian.substack.com/p/on-the-experience-...
Notice that most of this guy's problems come from rent. Getting decent housing is expensive, having a long commute is a byproduct of high rent, etc. That's caused by rampant NIMBYism preventing the construction of new housing, and not anything related to American minimum wage. If you increased the minimum wage 200% rent would also increase 200% because housing is inelastic. This exact trend has played out in the SFBA, Seattle, and many other west coast cities over the last decade. You can't legislate your way out of supply and demand.
The mother of a friend on mine in Pakistan was hiring a part-time housekeeper for ~3 hours per day. One housekeeper asked for $40 USD/month, and the mother thought that was too expensive.
Well it depends on 1) the local price and 2) the ability of the mother to pay. She may not be able to afford help with an American minimum wage.
In Mumbai, our friends were pretty well off and had a housekeeper who came 2 x 2 hours daily (preparing lunch and dinner, doing laundry, and cleaning around). The housekeeper, being paid pretty well, had her own housekeeper so she could have time for all these housekeeping gigs.
The well-off friends had never tried their aircon because it "was not that hot" (35 degrees C) and rummaged around to find the remote. It was so hot, I couldn't imagine that they just accepted it.
The well-off friends had never tried their aircon because it "was not that hot" (35 degrees C) and rummaged around to find the remote. It was so hot, I couldn't imagine that they just accepted it.
> The housekeeper, being paid pretty well, had her own housekeeper so she could have time for all these housekeeping gigs.
Sounds like her housekeeper should get better customers.
Sounds like her housekeeper should get better customers.
She may be fair skinned, her housekeeper may be dark skinned. In India, something as simple as that can determine how much you may make as a housekeeper. Sucks, right?
Here in Dhaka, we pay around 45usd/month for 1.5hr of work per day.
Captain, did you move back to BD from the West?
Yesterday someone posted admonishing billionaires who live lives without the sort of day-to-day experiences the rest of us do. They cited their concerns— finding enough free time to do activities, getting along with co-workers, etc. It’s just this great disconnect you run into online— people don’t realize a great deal of the world would see having those [working-class] types of concerns as luxurious and disconnected from their own. It’s just a gap you see a lot of here, you really have to work to remember how bad billions of people have it.
I am sorry if my comment was presumptuous or inappropriate. It was not intended to be. I prefaced it with a disclaimer trying to contextualize how I was trying to relate to the story. I am aware I live in a rich country, that food and medical care as such are not an issue by comparison, even as a very poor person. I saw that the woman in the article earns barely a third what I received from the government in social assistance, on top of what I could earn. I try to be aware of that. I have only seen true slums from afar. Perhaps I have failed in that awareness. What I saw was a human story, about trying to find love with little resources and not much social standing. It is a universal theme and I tried to relate to it in that way, to feel what those people feel seeking love and companionship. I'm sorry if that was uncalled for and trying to turn the focus back on my relative privilege and material comfort. It wasn't intended to do so.
I apologize for calling your comment out, it was not exactly the kind of comment I wanted to address. I should've provided a better example.
My comment was actually not about your comment specifically, but about making these comparisons without the appropriate cultural context taken into account. I'm not passing a moral judgement or saying it's inappropriate, I'm just expressing a desire to have these comparisons be more meaningful by explicitly acknowledging the context.
I have an issue with making a direct comparison as in "X phenomena is the same as Y phenomena", because it glosses over a LOT when you compare countries like India and America.
My comment was actually not about your comment specifically, but about making these comparisons without the appropriate cultural context taken into account. I'm not passing a moral judgement or saying it's inappropriate, I'm just expressing a desire to have these comparisons be more meaningful by explicitly acknowledging the context.
I have an issue with making a direct comparison as in "X phenomena is the same as Y phenomena", because it glosses over a LOT when you compare countries like India and America.
i would not consider someone who can spend $100 on average in an afternoon to be middle class.
If that's $100 per half day, integrated over a month that comes out to monthly expenditures of $6000/mo, which is solidly middle class. Not working class, but certainly within reach of a low/mid level Facebook employee.
i expect spending here to mean cash you spend while enjoying your free time outside. from that 6000 you need to subtract rent/mortgage, and any other living expenses. if you then still have enough money that you can go out and spend $100 in an afternoon on average, then you are no longer middle class i would say.
the "problem" here is the average. sure, a middle class income can afford to spend $100 in an afternoon once in a while. but unless you limit your discretionary spending to only these afternoons, you'll spend money on other things too. hobbies, travel, etc. if after all that you still can afford $100 every afternoon (even if only on weekends that's already $800 a month), you got to earn enough that you simply never worry about money.
the "problem" here is the average. sure, a middle class income can afford to spend $100 in an afternoon once in a while. but unless you limit your discretionary spending to only these afternoons, you'll spend money on other things too. hobbies, travel, etc. if after all that you still can afford $100 every afternoon (even if only on weekends that's already $800 a month), you got to earn enough that you simply never worry about money.
> then you are no longer middle class i would say
Well what are they then?
You can't seriously claim that having just $100 a day of disposable income makes you part of the upper class?
Well what are they then?
You can't seriously claim that having just $100 a day of disposable income makes you part of the upper class?
if you have $100 a day of disposable income, you are not going to spend all of it every afternoon. if you do, your actual disposable income is much higher.
money for discretionary spending is not the same as disposable income.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/disposableincome.asp defines disposable income as net income, that means after taxes but before living expenses.
https://www.investopedia.com/insights/americas-slowly-disapp... defines middle class in the US as a disposable income from 35k to 106k a year.
if you spend all your discretionary money on going out with your friends and not on any other hobbies, traveling, gifts, etc, then maybe you can spend $100 every weekend afternoon.
money for discretionary spending is not the same as disposable income.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/disposableincome.asp defines disposable income as net income, that means after taxes but before living expenses.
https://www.investopedia.com/insights/americas-slowly-disapp... defines middle class in the US as a disposable income from 35k to 106k a year.
if you spend all your discretionary money on going out with your friends and not on any other hobbies, traveling, gifts, etc, then maybe you can spend $100 every weekend afternoon.
Ok... but this still isn't even within orders of magnitude of 'upper class', is it?
EDIT: i used the terms middle class and upper class, when i should have used middle income and upper income.
middle class and middle income are often mixed up. upper class and upper income less so.
old text:
well if the definition of middle class ends at 106k income per year then anything above that must be upper class. the problem here is that obviously upper class has a very wide range which skews the perception of what makes upper class.
of course definitions are just that. the reality is not so clear cut.
middle class and middle income are often mixed up. upper class and upper income less so.
old text:
well if the definition of middle class ends at 106k income per year then anything above that must be upper class. the problem here is that obviously upper class has a very wide range which skews the perception of what makes upper class.
of course definitions are just that. the reality is not so clear cut.
Upper class means different things in different cultures. In UK more of an association with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landed_gentry than a level of income.
Upper class starting at around 100k would give America an upper class of around a third of the population! I guess we're meaning entirely different things since an upper class of a third of the population seems like a contradiction in terms to me!
I assume they're talking about 100k individual income as opposed to household income?
household of three. the 106k number comes from data from 2010. in the same article the range for 2016 is $45,200 to $135,600 annually for a household of three.
The upper class doesn't need to work for their money. Of course the line draws different in every location, but the difference between the upper-middle class lawyer and the upper-class lawyer is that the upper-class lawyer could quit and still pass this privelege onto their children.
what often gets mixed up is middle income vs middle class and consequently upper income and upper class.
apparently, middle income and middle class are often used interchangeably even though they don't mean quite the same thing, while arguable upper income and upper class are much more different.
apparently, middle income and middle class are often used interchangeably even though they don't mean quite the same thing, while arguable upper income and upper class are much more different.
[deleted]
Well I will call them Lower-Upper-Middle class.
A low/mid level Facebook employee is very well off upper middle class, not middle class.
And most such employees still will save most of their income rather than wastefully splurge it on $100 meals.
And most such employees still will save most of their income rather than wastefully splurge it on $100 meals.
Middle class means different things in different cities, even within the US (and in some cases between cities in a single state). You simply cannot classify someone based on a number alone.
I'm not an expert statistician, but why can't you classify people's economic class based on the quantile their revenue falls in? You can assume a distribution based on the data (probably normally distributed) or go all non-parametric based on empirical quantiles.
I don't see how this cannot be easily understood with a number. Sure, you can never predict one observation, but the average in some quantile is quite standard modelling.
I don't see how this cannot be easily understood with a number. Sure, you can never predict one observation, but the average in some quantile is quite standard modelling.
[deleted]
> based on the quantile their revenue falls in
Are you calculating this quantile with respect to their neighbors' revenue? The rest of the city? County? State? Country? Or the entire world? You will get a different answer for each of them.
Are you calculating this quantile with respect to their neighbors' revenue? The rest of the city? County? State? Country? Or the entire world? You will get a different answer for each of them.
That's part of your modelling. If you're interested in the neighborhood's income distribution, then use the neighborhood's data. If you're interested in the world's distribution, then use world data.
This depends on how you want to look at the issue, but it comes down to a number yes.
This depends on how you want to look at the issue, but it comes down to a number yes.
That's my entire point. You need a (number, location) combo to many any reasonable deduction, not just a number.
Sure but that's true about any number, I can't think of any number which adds any value without some context. In statistics, your population is your context and all inference/conclusion depends on the population (local, city, world,etc). For social classes, I'd say the more local the more representative your number, which doesn't mean there isn't a number to represent the middle class.
Generally my sense is that people are not good at measuring their expertise about topics. We infer a lot of data into our world views based on paltry facts and analogy to our own experiences. We think we understand because our minds paper over the lacuna of our knowledge. The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know, and how quick people are to believe that other people's experience is much like their own.
That's why I ask people to cite sources often, or listen to their personal stories, so I can learn more.
That's why I ask people to cite sources often, or listen to their personal stories, so I can learn more.
[deleted]
> Then I read the first comment on this HN thread, which is directly comparing this to Toronto.
> [...] Reminds me of learning a new language, where beginners try to formulate thoughts in their native tongue and produce a direct translation, whereas those who are fluent can skip that step completely.
Immigrant brown man living in Toronto here. I don't have any dating life. Because dating a brown man is stigmatized, thanks to racism and media representation. My upper-middle class white therapist couldn't believe that I am at the bottom tier in the dating market.
So it's not just some language or cultural barrier. People have hard times understanding the predicaments of people from lower socio-economic strata even when they live in the same city and speak same language.
> [...] Reminds me of learning a new language, where beginners try to formulate thoughts in their native tongue and produce a direct translation, whereas those who are fluent can skip that step completely.
Immigrant brown man living in Toronto here. I don't have any dating life. Because dating a brown man is stigmatized, thanks to racism and media representation. My upper-middle class white therapist couldn't believe that I am at the bottom tier in the dating market.
So it's not just some language or cultural barrier. People have hard times understanding the predicaments of people from lower socio-economic strata even when they live in the same city and speak same language.
> Immigrant brown man living in Toronto here. I don't have any dating life. Because dating a brown man is stigmatized, thanks to racism and media representation. My upper-middle class white therapist couldn't believe that I am at the bottom tier in the dating market.
What did your therapist think was the real issue?
What did your therapist think was the real issue?
[deleted]
> Then I read the first comment on this HN thread, which is directly comparing this to Toronto.
Canada should provide its youth an opportunity to visit a third-world community. Every G7 nation should be giving their citizens that experience. It would make a big difference to how our future plays out.
Canada should provide its youth an opportunity to visit a third-world community. Every G7 nation should be giving their citizens that experience. It would make a big difference to how our future plays out.
Yep - if you see a guy riding a rickety bicycle with a goat slung over his back... think about how he might be one of the wealthier people in his community.
When comparing, don't compare in absolute dollars, but the purchasing power in the local economy.
There is a difference between the "slums" in India versus the ones in USA. The indian slums are just poor with no infrastructure. you will find the people in the slums to be genuine, kind and hardworking. of course there are exceptions.
The slums in USA are exactly the opposite. The slum dwellers are scary to even look at. They don't work and they are anti social. They disturb the society.
The slums are happening in USA, despite plenty of jobs, government programs and NGOs trying to help them.
I am not one country is better than the other. simply pointing out the differences.
Article such as this are written to make Americans feel good about themselves at the cost of others, while providing absolutely no solution or help to those suffering.
so, either you should help or just shutup.
The slums in USA are exactly the opposite. The slum dwellers are scary to even look at. They don't work and they are anti social. They disturb the society.
The slums are happening in USA, despite plenty of jobs, government programs and NGOs trying to help them.
I am not one country is better than the other. simply pointing out the differences.
Article such as this are written to make Americans feel good about themselves at the cost of others, while providing absolutely no solution or help to those suffering.
so, either you should help or just shutup.
Some of this stuff looks very poorly sourced or misunderstood.
> Marrying within the “gotra” is one of the primary reasons for recurring “honour killing” of lovers in India
I hope not, because it is such a weird upper-caste nit-pick.
> they talk about their lives and walk around the park, or eat aloo-chaat or golgappas at a roadside stall
That is such a still frame of the middle class life in Delhi from the 90s. My partner's been dragging me to Green park and AIIMS to revisit places which has stayed running for 25 years.
The 2012 Nirbhaya case had a chilling effect on this for young couples, which is why the trend moved away from being outside and into malls with security cameras.
> Marrying within the “gotra” is one of the primary reasons for recurring “honour killing” of lovers in India
I hope not, because it is such a weird upper-caste nit-pick.
> they talk about their lives and walk around the park, or eat aloo-chaat or golgappas at a roadside stall
That is such a still frame of the middle class life in Delhi from the 90s. My partner's been dragging me to Green park and AIIMS to revisit places which has stayed running for 25 years.
The 2012 Nirbhaya case had a chilling effect on this for young couples, which is why the trend moved away from being outside and into malls with security cameras.
Yeah that part stood out to me. Honor killings happen for the opposite reason – the sides are too far apart in terms of religion, caste etc. Gotra is an overall minor concern even to hard-liners.
> The 2012 Nirbhaya case
I wasn’t familiar with it but remembered after reading the below link. Warning, it’s horrific.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_and_mur...
I wasn’t familiar with it but remembered after reading the below link. Warning, it’s horrific.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_and_mur...
Unfortunately Indian media is full of "secular" authors pretending to be liberal but regularly dishing hate against native faiths.
But to be fair, it's not just the news media that's afflicted by this disease, bollywood is no better.
But to be fair, it's not just the news media that's afflicted by this disease, bollywood is no better.
Huh? I don’t think any journalist cares what god(s) you worship , as long as you don’t impose anything on those around you
Standard right wing talking point. Liberal authors criticizing the current regime, a Hindu nationalist party, are anti nationals. Here criticism of the BJP or social ills is equated to hatred of Hinduism. The authors might themselves be Hindus, but it doesn't matter.
I didn't understand your viewpoint. What exactly are you angry at in believing the author is "dishing hate" - that the author pointed out that marrying within gotras is frowned upon or that people are sometimes killed over it (honour killing)? Both are facts.
People are murdered by family over all sorts of things, but random incidents don't imply a general pattern.
Honor killing is a real occurrence but not over gotra-incest.
Honor killing is a real occurrence but not over gotra-incest.
> Honor killing is a real occurrence but not over gotra-incest.
Only some Hindus (often castiest / religious fundamentalists) believe that a sexual relationship within the same gotra is incest. And it is that mindset that leads to honour killing in the name of gotra. And they do happen. But you are right that they often aren't the major catalyst for honour killing, even if many demand a ban on same-gotra marriage:
This has even been challenged in court and marriage within the same gotra has been ruled legal in India even before independence:
Only some Hindus (often castiest / religious fundamentalists) believe that a sexual relationship within the same gotra is incest. And it is that mindset that leads to honour killing in the name of gotra. And they do happen. But you are right that they often aren't the major catalyst for honour killing, even if many demand a ban on same-gotra marriage:
Will such so-called “honour killings” stop if the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is amended to prohibit marriages within the same gotra? Unlikely. That may be the most publicised of the demands and threats issued by the Khap Mahapanchayat — a congregation of caste Panchayats from Jat strongholds in Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan — in Kurukshetra on April 13, and subsequently elsewhere. But it was not the only one. They have also reportedly called for a ban on marriages within the same village and contiguous villages, as well as de-recognition of temple weddings uniting runaway couples.
This has even been challenged in court and marriage within the same gotra has been ruled legal in India even before independence:
Same-gotra marriages were declared legally valid by the Bombay High Court as far back as in 1945 in the Madhavrao vs. Raghavendrarao case involving a Deshastha Brahmin couple. Two reputed judges — Harilal Kania (who became the first Chief Justice of independent India) and P.B. Gajendragadkar (who went on to become the Chief Justice of India in the 1960s) — examined several court verdicts, consulted the writings of leading experts and quoted from Hindu scriptures in their ruling on whether a 'sagotra' (same-gotra) marriage was valid under Hindu law/custom. They concluded that it was.
> I hope not, because it is such a weird upper-caste nit-pick.
Honor killing is also a weird upper-caste nit-pick, you know
Honor killing is also a weird upper-caste nit-pick, you know
As a man who lives below the poverty line I am extremely insecure about dating just because I worry about my partner trading up for someone with more money than me.
The consumerist culture doesn't help my confidence with women either. That Bruno Mars song "That's What I like" is literally just 3.5 minutes of him explaining how he seduces women by buying them lots of very expensive things. I couldn't even compete with a walmart middle manager at that game.
The consumerist culture doesn't help my confidence with women either. That Bruno Mars song "That's What I like" is literally just 3.5 minutes of him explaining how he seduces women by buying them lots of very expensive things. I couldn't even compete with a walmart middle manager at that game.
One thing that struck me was the number of parks they went to. I’m sitting here is a fantastically beautiful state (Western Washington) with so much to offer outdoors, yet I realize I’ve barely explored what is there for free, always opting for expensive dinners or events.
This weekend I’m going to change that, for the first time since covid started we’ll go for a hike in a park.
This weekend I’m going to change that, for the first time since covid started we’ll go for a hike in a park.
Seriously, a dinner for two costs $125 in India in a place with $400 average monthly income? This is what it would cost here in Cyprus, short of really nice places in Nicosia or Limassol, and the monthly income is 5x as much. Maybe $200 in the very nicest of places.
I'm a developer and make in mid-six figures, and whenever i see a $125 bill including tips, i start to feel like "oh, this is pricey".
I'm a developer and make in mid-six figures, and whenever i see a $125 bill including tips, i start to feel like "oh, this is pricey".
Dinner at an average restaurant doesnt cost that much. You can have a nice meal (for two) in a place with good ambience for 20 USD.
It doesn't, author is making a gross exaggeration.
Exaggeration is an understatement. The author is either ignorant or has an agenda.
Rich people buffets in the city cost $20 for 2. The most expensive buffets on New years Ev, in the city cost like 80$ for 2.
Rich people buffets in the city cost $20 for 2. The most expensive buffets on New years Ev, in the city cost like 80$ for 2.
Even though the article captures a good amount of truth about the lifestyle, the dinner pricing might need a bit of context. The top 5% of the restaurants might cost more than a hundred bucks for two people but that should be expected from the high-end four star and five star restaurants. I'm an Indian engineer who earns in USD, and even if I'm picky, my per meal is always between $3 - $5. Even if I'm going for keto or specialised meals, it never goes beyond $10.
You surely meant five figures and not ~500,000?
I meant annual income in my context ofc.
Marrying in same gotra is not one of the reason for honour killing. There are no evidences for it. There are reports for such incidents for marriage between two castes and religions. It appears the author has preconceived notions against certain aspect of indian society. A little factual evidence being provided,or diligent research before putting personal perspectives would have been better.
I would contend it's easier to date in India. Cheap thrills are everywhere, far too many people around for you to stick out of the crowd (you just need to be a few train/bus stops away from familiar locations).
Strikingly, transportation is cheap. No need to own a car/get expensive Uber rides. And street food is plenty and delicious. Simple dating is much easier for everyone in the spectrum.
Societal issues on the other hand are still not up to the other modern 50% of the country.
Strikingly, transportation is cheap. No need to own a car/get expensive Uber rides. And street food is plenty and delicious. Simple dating is much easier for everyone in the spectrum.
Societal issues on the other hand are still not up to the other modern 50% of the country.
Absolutely not. It may be cheap in terms of money, but the implicit costs are horrendous. In areas out of large metro-cities dating (or even courting) is a taboo and seen as a sign of lack of character, especially for women. Young couples very often get thrashed by their family members or self-styled vigilantes for it.
Its not easier to "date" in India. The society, especially the "traditional" families, are still not accepting of dating. As the article points out, pre-marital sex is still taboo for a large section of society. Alcohol consumption is frowned upon. You really have to be extremely careful when you hang out as a "couple".
> far too many people around for you to stick out of the crowd (you just need to be a few train/bus stops away from familiar locations).
Except that everyone seems to be extremely nosy, are part of extended clans, so it feels incredibly suffocating. You feel like you're always being watched, even if that seems silly (it happens often enough to cause concern but not 100% of the time).
In liberal/Western countries, dating is so much easier. You can meet with anyone over coffee/drinks, hang out anywhere, make out in public, whatever.
> far too many people around for you to stick out of the crowd (you just need to be a few train/bus stops away from familiar locations).
Except that everyone seems to be extremely nosy, are part of extended clans, so it feels incredibly suffocating. You feel like you're always being watched, even if that seems silly (it happens often enough to cause concern but not 100% of the time).
In liberal/Western countries, dating is so much easier. You can meet with anyone over coffee/drinks, hang out anywhere, make out in public, whatever.
I used to go on dates when I could barely afford to sit in a cafe. It was glorious. I've met women, had great time,etc. Never did any fine dining on any of my dates and it was fine.
I'm sure many indians do the same and instead of going to super duper restaurant, they adjust based on their income level and do something else instead.
I'm sure many indians do the same and instead of going to super duper restaurant, they adjust based on their income level and do something else instead.
It's fascinating how much wider the class gap is there, but so many of the same dynamics sound familiar. Parts of it read as very familiar to me. In Toronto, as a guy from a small town and a working class background. It is also very different for me, of course. Ultimately very few Canadians are "poor", in a sense. I could walk into one of our hospitals on one of those dates and be seen for free. Social assistance paid more when I was homeless than that woman earns; though $100 does go much further in Delhi.
But I do remember that disjunction; it's normal, expected, to spend what amounts to a week or a month of my income on a night out. Being gay, the pressure to hide, to go for a date some place far away from home, somewhere you can hopefully blend in, or somewhere private, and where you won't attraction the attention of jeers, usually just jeers but sometimes you worry you'll have to run. Even the bit about McDonald's being too expensive. It is. It's a luxury, though most of us, myself included, tend not to think of it as such. Until you have $80 in your account and a whole week ahead and he wants to get a burger for dinner. $25 is a lot of money suddenly. It's an interesting experience when your friends decide to go out for dinner and your concern with where to go is which location has a menu option with a decent ratio for calories per $ and if the water is free.
I too found poetry to be worth far more than it cost. Trees can be a gift. As can parks. And settings. Many intangible things can be gifts. And it is an art to be learned and practiced, just like the art of selecting and giving physical gifts. And of physical gifts, I discovered long ago that it truly is the thought that counts. Oh, yes, someone will love something that is of monetary value or expensive. But I have received many gifts worth some real money, but the ones where the gift was the thought are the ones I tend to still have. A card when I wasn't expecting one. I still have the thoroughly wrecked chew-toy for my dog gotten by one particular friend who is now gone.
Maybe as a result of our smaller class gap, there is one thing that doesn't ring so true to me. "The girls also don’t have that many expectations." Not here. The boys had big expectations. It's easier to jump over the class gap if you're young and attractive, at least for a while, and pursue the material in exchange for the material, so to speak. I did it too; who doesn't want to go away for the weekend; go out for drinks and not count out the coins?
But I do remember that disjunction; it's normal, expected, to spend what amounts to a week or a month of my income on a night out. Being gay, the pressure to hide, to go for a date some place far away from home, somewhere you can hopefully blend in, or somewhere private, and where you won't attraction the attention of jeers, usually just jeers but sometimes you worry you'll have to run. Even the bit about McDonald's being too expensive. It is. It's a luxury, though most of us, myself included, tend not to think of it as such. Until you have $80 in your account and a whole week ahead and he wants to get a burger for dinner. $25 is a lot of money suddenly. It's an interesting experience when your friends decide to go out for dinner and your concern with where to go is which location has a menu option with a decent ratio for calories per $ and if the water is free.
I too found poetry to be worth far more than it cost. Trees can be a gift. As can parks. And settings. Many intangible things can be gifts. And it is an art to be learned and practiced, just like the art of selecting and giving physical gifts. And of physical gifts, I discovered long ago that it truly is the thought that counts. Oh, yes, someone will love something that is of monetary value or expensive. But I have received many gifts worth some real money, but the ones where the gift was the thought are the ones I tend to still have. A card when I wasn't expecting one. I still have the thoroughly wrecked chew-toy for my dog gotten by one particular friend who is now gone.
Maybe as a result of our smaller class gap, there is one thing that doesn't ring so true to me. "The girls also don’t have that many expectations." Not here. The boys had big expectations. It's easier to jump over the class gap if you're young and attractive, at least for a while, and pursue the material in exchange for the material, so to speak. I did it too; who doesn't want to go away for the weekend; go out for drinks and not count out the coins?
It sounds like you are away from home feel a sense of freedom and got sucked into a downtown lifestyle with no budget. I don't understand why out of towners move downtown and only downtown where local people have moved to other areas of the city because of price and affordability. Somehow downtown feels safe because as a tourist that's what you see. For those moving get out of the downtown core and be able to afford your city.
I lived in downtown adjacent neighborhoods for years before moving downtown. This isn’t going to be my forever neighborhood but it’s really nice being able to walk to a _wide_ selection of restaurants nearby, be close to well-maintained parks and have multiple transit lines to take into work.
[deleted]
No, I was living in the outer suburbs. Toronto has always been expensive. Nearly all of my income went to the rent on a bedroom and a transit pass the first year. I suppose that is the downtown lifestyle, though.
[deleted]
As an Indian immigrant now living in Toronto, this comment comes off a bit tone deaf. I don't mean to poor-shame you, but you can not possibly compare yourself to a poor person in India. The difference in the divide is so massive to the point where it's not comparable.
McDonalds is a luxury for most people, even in Toronto. It's just cheaper than most other restaurants, and people don't/can't care about how it impacts their finances. Looking at the amount of food/$ is something most people do, even in Toronto. You aren't special for thinking that.
McDonalds is a luxury for most people, even in Toronto. It's just cheaper than most other restaurants, and people don't/can't care about how it impacts their finances. Looking at the amount of food/$ is something most people do, even in Toronto. You aren't special for thinking that.
Whenever there is comparison between something in India and west, almost always its not apples to apples. There are 1.3 billion people, and very wide range of social & economic spectrum, which inherently makes comparison very difficult. for the sake of example - for "X", you will find many many Indians spending vastly more than western people, at the same time you will find millions of Indians who could not even dream about X. replace anything in X. Another I have seen many families who give freedom to girl on whatever they want to do, at the same time there are several conservative and hardliners families. its very hard to generalized due to sheer size and diversity of India.
IMO without meaningful context comparison between west & India is pointless.
IMO without meaningful context comparison between west & India is pointless.
> and very wide range of social & economic spectrum,
You are just making it more complicated. When you talk about X, that X applies to majority of the population.
When someone says India is poor country because majority of the people are poor saying India has millions of rich people is not a valid argument.
You are just making it more complicated. When you talk about X, that X applies to majority of the population.
When someone says India is poor country because majority of the people are poor saying India has millions of rich people is not a valid argument.
An Indian man once told me religion is the only unifying part of India. That if that didn’t exist, India would fall apart. Can’t tell of course if that is true.
That's more likely the government + military.
Makes no sense. Religion is rapidly declining yet the citizens are getting more patriotic and developing a stronger common identity. Things like culture/tradition/language/food are much more important than religion for unification. This applies everywhere in the world.
Delhi has a per capita annual income of 300,000 rupees ($4,615) - the highest in the country and three times the national average. But nearly half of the city’s population lives in slums without basic services and facilities like drinking water, garbage disposal or a proper drainage system.
And life goes on, and little change is made. Many nations are so unfortunate to live in a poor society, with not so many chances of getting better.
And life goes on, and little change is made. Many nations are so unfortunate to live in a poor society, with not so many chances of getting better.
Something I dislike about the whole "dating" thing (a very US cultural influence due to their media) is that what is supposed to be a normal socialising event between too people, is made into a consumerist ritual. So much that two couples walking in a park or hanging with their friends is not really a "date" or you being cheapskate as, apparently, romance without money is no longer romance.
This is not just a "walk in the park" date. I have seen these parks myself, in Delhi and in Mumbai--there are literally dozens of couples kissing and having sex in the dark in these tiny, tiny parks, hardly 30 feet between couples. It is a date of last resort in a gossip-heavy culture--there is no privacy, and young people are shamed for wanting to experience love, especially if it's with the "wrong" person.
Damn thats crazy. Had no idea this was a thing over there.
So different from my experience in the US
So different from my experience in the US
The idea of having to spend a lot of money on dates is quite a dated (lol) idea in the US. Perhaps it was true for earlier generations, or maybe it was something that was portrayed a lot in the movies or whatever. My experience has always been of meeting other people for conversation and shared activities.
Expensive dinners for first dates are actually pretty tacky and many women will consider it a red flag/try hard.
Expensive dinners for first dates are actually pretty tacky and many women will consider it a red flag/try hard.
I've never made this distinction in my head.
Me neither, but I do have friends that did!
wow this was such a nice reflexion on values, about romantic stuff, really it was a great reading, thanks a lot
Dating never requires money. And no guy should be a free dinner dispenser or ATM for commercial activities for someone he doesn't even know.
You can click, talk, walk, dance, and kiss for free... anywhere and everywhere.
Besides, dinner and coffee interview dates are too formal and boring.. zzz.
You can click, talk, walk, dance, and kiss for free... anywhere and everywhere.
Besides, dinner and coffee interview dates are too formal and boring.. zzz.
If you can't have a fun conversation over coffee or dinner you probably arent compatible
> If you can't have a fun conversation over coffee or dinner you probably arent compatible
I don't agree with this. Most people aren't comfortable opening up right away on their first interaction with someone they don't know very well. A lot of people also suffer from anxiety issues which can make it difficult for them to open up right away. Coffee/Drinks help to alleviate that somewhat as they're stimulants/social lubricants. Dinner? not so much, it just makes you full and sleepy.
I don't agree with this. Most people aren't comfortable opening up right away on their first interaction with someone they don't know very well. A lot of people also suffer from anxiety issues which can make it difficult for them to open up right away. Coffee/Drinks help to alleviate that somewhat as they're stimulants/social lubricants. Dinner? not so much, it just makes you full and sleepy.
Dating is so depressing, and it sounds even more soul crushing under these conditions.
I disagree. It is the best thing they have in their lives.
Also, you don't really need money to be happy. I used to have no money at all when I was young and still had great time with girls.
Also, you don't really need money to be happy. I used to have no money at all when I was young and still had great time with girls.
I'd rather practice Brahmachariya and be married
>practice Brahmachariya and be married
???
You do know Brahmacharya means celibacy, right?
???
You do know Brahmacharya means celibacy, right?
It kind of means that, yes. It means a lot more. I mean practice Brahmachariya until marriage. Also there is still purusha dharma and sri dharma to follow once married which continues aspects of Brahmachariya into marriage like not lusting after others, even in dreams
Much easier than dating in Antarctica when you’re rich
I thought Indians largely looked down on dating, although maybe the times have changed in the last 10 years? I have many close Indian friends and they are all married via arranged marriage. I’m pretty sure their American-born children will not marry via arranged marriage though and they have all come to grips with that.
I remember talking with one of my friends about arranged marriage and she laughed in my face when I asked her what she thought about marrying for love. She said that marrying for love is a Hollywood myth and if you look around, did it really exist long term? She said compatibility was the most important thing, not love, which I found very interesting.
I remember talking with one of my friends about arranged marriage and she laughed in my face when I asked her what she thought about marrying for love. She said that marrying for love is a Hollywood myth and if you look around, did it really exist long term? She said compatibility was the most important thing, not love, which I found very interesting.
"Arranged marriage" in an Indian context doesn't necessarily imply "parents tell you who to marry".
In many cases it's essentially parent-involved matchmaking. There may be a professional matchmaker or family astrologer who sources leads. The prospective bride and bridegroom consider multiple or even dozens of options, and discuss their favorites with their parents or other close relatives. The bride/groom visit each other a few times, with families in tow. After they reach an agreement, there's a few months-long engagement. The couple may stay in touch by telephone, social media, video calls, (often chaperoned) in-person visits, and so on. If either person finds a major red-flag during this time, they have the (rarely-used) nuclear option of breaking the engagement.
(Source: I know Indian couples who have "arranged marriages" in the way I described).
> She said compatibility was the most important thing, not love, which I found very interesting.
Isn't that considered important in the West too? Advice such as "you have to agree on money, children, and religion; everything else is negotiable" or "you have to be able to make each other laugh" is thrown out pretty frequently. It's generally understood that relationships have a honeymoon phase, after which compatibility is a major factor in staying together. People who get married young sometimes don't understand this fully.
In many cases it's essentially parent-involved matchmaking. There may be a professional matchmaker or family astrologer who sources leads. The prospective bride and bridegroom consider multiple or even dozens of options, and discuss their favorites with their parents or other close relatives. The bride/groom visit each other a few times, with families in tow. After they reach an agreement, there's a few months-long engagement. The couple may stay in touch by telephone, social media, video calls, (often chaperoned) in-person visits, and so on. If either person finds a major red-flag during this time, they have the (rarely-used) nuclear option of breaking the engagement.
(Source: I know Indian couples who have "arranged marriages" in the way I described).
> She said compatibility was the most important thing, not love, which I found very interesting.
Isn't that considered important in the West too? Advice such as "you have to agree on money, children, and religion; everything else is negotiable" or "you have to be able to make each other laugh" is thrown out pretty frequently. It's generally understood that relationships have a honeymoon phase, after which compatibility is a major factor in staying together. People who get married young sometimes don't understand this fully.
>The prospective bride and bridegroom consider multiple or even dozens of options, and discuss their favorites with their parents or other close relatives.
>If either person finds a major red-flag during this time, they have the (rarely-used) nuclear option of breaking the engagement.
In India, this happens very rarely and mostly among the upper-classes. I'm guessing the Indian couples you know fall in that criteria. In many normal middle-income (or lower-income, by US standards) households, young adults don't even perceive the idea of having a freedom to choose their spouses, let alone dating or courting partners.
> "Arranged marriage" in an Indian context doesn't necessarily imply "parents tell you who to marry".
You're right about this in some cases, but in almost all other cases it also doesn't imply "you can marry whoever you want".
>If either person finds a major red-flag during this time, they have the (rarely-used) nuclear option of breaking the engagement.
In India, this happens very rarely and mostly among the upper-classes. I'm guessing the Indian couples you know fall in that criteria. In many normal middle-income (or lower-income, by US standards) households, young adults don't even perceive the idea of having a freedom to choose their spouses, let alone dating or courting partners.
> "Arranged marriage" in an Indian context doesn't necessarily imply "parents tell you who to marry".
You're right about this in some cases, but in almost all other cases it also doesn't imply "you can marry whoever you want".
> it also doesn't imply "you can marry whoever you want".
Per my understanding, parents, or their proxies (matchmakers, astrologers, interested close family and friends) source the prospects that their children consider. Which means those potential matches have parental "pre-approval", with things like education, career, and family background already taken into account. From that pre-vetted list, "you can marry whoever you want" is mostly true, from what I've been told. Unless some major red flag comes up during the family meet-and-greet.
It's possible my sample is limited to people from upper-class backgrounds.
Per my understanding, parents, or their proxies (matchmakers, astrologers, interested close family and friends) source the prospects that their children consider. Which means those potential matches have parental "pre-approval", with things like education, career, and family background already taken into account. From that pre-vetted list, "you can marry whoever you want" is mostly true, from what I've been told. Unless some major red flag comes up during the family meet-and-greet.
It's possible my sample is limited to people from upper-class backgrounds.
For a (somewhat fake) introduction to this concept, check out Indian Matchmaking on Netflix.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Suitable_Girl_(film) was more realistic.
> (somewhat fake)
To be clear, it doesn't seem fake, just something that only happens in the rich/upper classes. Most middle class Indians will not pay for professional matchmakers, they simply rely on their extended family/social networks to find ideal suitors for their (grown up) children.
To be clear, it doesn't seem fake, just something that only happens in the rich/upper classes. Most middle class Indians will not pay for professional matchmakers, they simply rely on their extended family/social networks to find ideal suitors for their (grown up) children.
I don't think you know what "arranged marriage" really means.
Previously it used to be that your parents would choose your partner for you and you didn't have a choice (well this was true everywhere in the world). This still happens in rural and lesser urbanized areas, but things are changing pretty fast. In urban areas, arranged marriage is basically Tinder with parents - but the goal is to optimize for long-term happiness. Also it's not like the partners never meet each other before marrying - it's usually at least a few meets to decide if they are compatible. If not, you just move on to the next family in the list. The idea is that compatibility is more important. If you're compatible, "love" will happen eventually.
It's true that a few meets are not usually enough to judge compatibility, which is why arranged marriages are on their way out and will eventually die out.
Previously it used to be that your parents would choose your partner for you and you didn't have a choice (well this was true everywhere in the world). This still happens in rural and lesser urbanized areas, but things are changing pretty fast. In urban areas, arranged marriage is basically Tinder with parents - but the goal is to optimize for long-term happiness. Also it's not like the partners never meet each other before marrying - it's usually at least a few meets to decide if they are compatible. If not, you just move on to the next family in the list. The idea is that compatibility is more important. If you're compatible, "love" will happen eventually.
It's true that a few meets are not usually enough to judge compatibility, which is why arranged marriages are on their way out and will eventually die out.
> She said compatibility was the most important thing, not love, which I found very interesting.
Calmly explain to her that the best thing to do is to spend teens and 20s "finding yourself" and "experimenting" and "having fun" as a "free spirit" then to "settle down" in your 30s when you are "ready" and "know what you want".
Calmly explain to her that the best thing to do is to spend teens and 20s "finding yourself" and "experimenting" and "having fun" as a "free spirit" then to "settle down" in your 30s when you are "ready" and "know what you want".
Somewhat of a personal understanding, settling down later in life is one of the key problems today. In early 20s you are flexible, by later 20s you gonna earn your own skin and ways of life. It becomes harder to gel up with someone else.
In case you are luck, make it work early or as they say keep looking.
The compatibility being important is something I was told and I live in Europe. The compatibility is talked about a lot on relationship forums too (for example on reddit) - including by Americans.
Literally only place where the importance of compatibility is considered odd is HN. Here, compatibility and matching is never mentioned in debated about relationships. Everywhere else, it is considered important.
Literally only place where the importance of compatibility is considered odd is HN. Here, compatibility and matching is never mentioned in debated about relationships. Everywhere else, it is considered important.
India hosts 400% of humans of its healthy capacity; 150 people per sq km.
What the world sees is the tip of the iceberg. Someone alien to India might have to spend decades to get all the idiosyncrasies that run here.
For starters, good portion of sexual harassments/rapes are not reported. Even unnatural deaths go unnoticed or ignored.
What the world sees is the tip of the iceberg. Someone alien to India might have to spend decades to get all the idiosyncrasies that run here.
For starters, good portion of sexual harassments/rapes are not reported. Even unnatural deaths go unnoticed or ignored.
> India hosts 400% of humans of its healthy capacity; 150 people per sq km.
Urban areas in almost every part of the world have higher density. For example, New York City has 10,716 people per sq km, and Manhattan (a borough of NYC) has a density of 26,821.6 person per sq km.
So I'm not sure what you're point here is.
Urban areas in almost every part of the world have higher density. For example, New York City has 10,716 people per sq km, and Manhattan (a borough of NYC) has a density of 26,821.6 person per sq km.
So I'm not sure what you're point here is.
Metro cities are not self sufficient, they rely on near/remote regions for resources to sustain.
Ever herad of mumbai people to sq.meter or even delhi's. They are much higher than new yorks.
How is this comment relevant to the article?