←back to thread

526 points cactusplant7374 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
hysan ◴[] No.44078636[source]
I flagged this article and later saw it dead, so I’m quite surprised it came back. I found the content extremely shallow and lacking nuance. Others have mentioned, but it leaves out huge caveats because it would destroy the the conclusion - the cost of moving to the place in the first place, social connections, health (even worse for those with disabilities), emergency services, retirement, etc etc. The list of obvious hurdles that immediately disqualify most people is a glaring omission and I really don’t understand why this article garnered upvotes aside from affirming confirmation bias. This is the first time I’ve been greatly soured by the response from the HN community. What substance are people finding in this article?
replies(2): >>44078820 #>>44081957 #
1. an_guy ◴[] No.44078820[source]
> the cost of moving to the place in the first place, social connections, health (even worse for those with disabilities), emergency services, retirement, etc etc

Anyone moving to bay area for a higher income job would have most of these issues.

A forum full of people willing to migrate for better income and lifestyle should not be criticizing "cost of moving", "social connections", "health disabilities" and "retirement".

replies(1): >>44079139 #
2. hysan ◴[] No.44079139[source]
I might be misreading your reply, but what you’re keying in on and singling out is a tiny fraction of the audience the article is arguing for. My problem is with how shallow this article is and how it throws a wide net that doesn’t cover a ton of situations that prevent people from doing what he claims is possible for just about anyone if they change their mindset. If the argument were just for the subset of users you’re using as an example, then sure? But that’s isn’t as clickbaity and certainly doesn’t support the claim that any young person can just up and do what the writer claims.