Nice romantic view but the fact is that 95% of people in the western world can't afford society's perceptions of "basic needs". I'd wager that most people you hear talking about innovation, outside of Websummit and so on, are living hand-to-mouth and very much need to sell their ideas.

> 95% of people in the western world can't afford society's perceptions of "basic needs"

You're saying 95% of people in the Western world can't afford food, shelter, clothing, education, transportation, healthcare and entertainment? That's awfully grim. It also doesn't really jibe with my experience of the Western world; you can get by fine on $50k/yr (median US household income) outside of expensive areas like SF Bay Area or NYC. If what you're saying is true then the rest of the world must be truly unlivable.

EDIT: I think something like 20% is closer to the mark.

I specifically said 'perception' of basic needs ;) I'm not talking Maslow's hierarchy here...society's perception of a basic need is to own a modest house, but that puts most people into debt for life. Well that's how I see it at least.

I understand, and I really wasn't going for bare necessities (that's why I threw transportation and entertainment in there). I guess what I'm saying is that perhaps there's something wrong with society's perceptions of what a "modest" house actually is.

To illustrate, the median house price in the US is around $250k. That's pretty much in line with the rule of thumb that your house should cost at most 5x your gross annual income. So it would seem (at a first approximation) that most houses in the US are affordable, in the strictest, 30-year-mortgage sense of the word, to most households (considering $50k to be the median household income). And a $250k house in most parts of the country is by no means "modest"; we're talking 1500-1800 sq. ft., 2-3 bedrooms, a yard etc. (again outside expensive areas). So if a median-earning household were to spring for a truly modest home (1-2 bedrooms, 1000-1300 sq ft, $100-150k range) it would actually be cheap relative to their income and they could pay it off in < 15 years.

Maybe I'm simplifying too much, or perhaps your experience is different. In which case, of course, we would have differing opinions on this matter.

Those people you're talking about should move outside of Silicon Valley.

There's a whole world out there where you can live quite a comfortable lifestyle for a half or even a third of your average SV monthly income.

Seriously, money is a matter of hygiene and if you're feeling the need for more, it's time to make a serious change, like to change city or profession, because startups are a lottery.

Well your pay is going to decline in accordance with the cost of living. I'm mainly talking about salaried jobs here, I don't know how profitable the average startup is (I'm guessing 'not very')

Yes, but the relation between the cost of living and monthly income is not directly proportional, especially in the software industry where remote work is possible. You would be making less, but if you're making one third of your SV income, the cost of living can be much lower than one third of SV.

I'm from Romania, having worked remotely for EU and US companies and I never left because here I can have a much better lifestyle, I have freedom of movement when needed and recruiters coming with proposals which include relocation are simply not competitive.

Seriously, Silicon Valley is extremely overpriced and IMO quite toxic as an environment to live and raise children. That's because it is a bubble of really smart and well paying engineers, scientists and business people that have created a highly competitive environment.

And if you suffer because of the bubble, the answer is not to fight your way to the top, because that doesn't solve the problem. No, if you don't like the bubble, the answer is to get out of it.

If you're alive, your basic needs are being met. What you do over and above that is a recreational activity. Though I see people all the time engaged in recreational activities that don't look like much fun at all.

Not sure if homeless people's or victims of abuse and exploitations' needs are being met. Some even think it's totally fine after acclimating. There are varying degrees of needs and if you approach it biologically then improving the lives of people suffering is simply participating in a "luxury" industry. Pretty sure the execs of Tiffany's and Louis Vuitton do not view themselves as fulfilling the same general needs of the world as UNICEF and other humanitarian non-profits.

This kind of reducto as absurditum is how we have people that think it's perfectly fine for unprecedented mass poverty in the US outside the Great Depression because people may have running water and TVs when most of the world doesn't. While true, it misses the spirit of the discussion and is a non-sequitur line of reasoning as a result.