I don't see why race is a factor.

There is a whole host of things that could affect a place's desirability to live. It does not matter what you look like, if you're poor you gotta eat some shit once in a while.

That might be because you don't value family or other people like you around you. Personally I've lived in a bunch of countries and it's always been a lot easier for me with a support network.

I suppose in the context of the article we are talking about people already struggling, and I'm not suggesting at all that it's not a welcoming place. I'm just saying that it's gonna be out of comfort zone or "mental availability" for a lot of people.

What is obvious to one person is not at all obvious to another. Someone in SF is not likely to know anyone who moved to Lincoln, Nebraska, for example. They might know people who came from there though, I suppose.

Maybe you didn't read my comment. If you're poor, you don't have resources.

If you don't have resources, you have to deal with suboptimal conditions.

A support network is great, just like pleasant weather or a good job market. What is the premium you're willing to pay for being around people like you or family? Because you're going to have to pay.

Absolutely the opposite. I've been poor and absolutely I valued connections and networks over the fundamentals, much as rich people do.

Frankly I think this is the rational decision under the circumstances, factoring in uncertainty and decision costs.

You think I'm SJWing here while I'm just trying to explain how people actually make decisions, which is typically not with reference to abstract tables, but based on proximate lived experience.

The point wooshed above your head.

You valued connections and networks, so you made a CHOICE.

Nobody is forcing people to make choices. If you don't have money, you can move and have food and shelter or you can stay in a place you like living at except you have to struggle.

Choose one way or another. Does not matter. But you made the choice based on your priorities.

After you choose, you don't get to complain about how the choices you made led to consequences you don't like so much.

Point is, it doesn't matter how you make your decisions, but strangers do not have a moral obligation to bail you out of bad consequences.

Ok, thanks for the discussion, I don't think we will agree but I understand your point of view.

> The point wooshed above your head.

Uncivil swipes like this are not welcome here. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and clean up your act.

this is the "lynching" argument.

You pay for your bigotry.

look dude.

in america, if you aren't white, living in a place where it's 90% white is really, really, really unpleasant. people basically treat you like human garbage on a daily basis. this has a massive effect on your well-being and psychology, triple so if you are a child growing up in that environment.

i wish you would at least try to attempt to understand this instead of using the 'lynching' hyperbole which is obviously just you using the extreme opposite end of the experiential spectrum to invalidate the real life experiences of people who have to deal with racism constantly.

and honestly, i think by using a word like that you at least know, deep down, what the deal is.

As a brown immigrant with family living in places like Dallas, Houston and st Louis I vouch for this. Even though I'm filthy rich compared to the poor woman the article talks about even I could instantly increase my quality of life by moving to st. Louis. I would consider this a huge downgrade from the bay area primarily since it's simply unsafe and hostile for someone with my "color". My family members who grew up in the Midwest grow up living in lowkey constant fear. So yeah moving might be a terrible downgrade for many non whites.

... but is it bigotry if it's based on actual lived experience?

I mean, you're probably reading a bit too much into the guy's post. He's probably not talking about lynching, more likely about way smaller stuff.

> ... but is it bigotry if it's based on actual lived experience?

absolutely. because you are generalizing an anecdotal experience to unrelated individuals who happen to be in the same general group.

Also, if it's about "way smaller stuff" then the benefits by far outweigh the costs.