The Mating Crisis Among Educated Women - <AUTHOR> https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26747 <comment><USER3> > They end up being forced to compete for the limited pool of educated men not > just with their more numerous educated rivals, but also with less educated > women whom men find desirable on other dimensions.

Considering that we want to eliminate any gaps between the genders, why are educated women limited to educated men of their own ages? Why not increase the pool like men do: go for more younger, possibly less educated men (as the article implies for men)?

> As men age, they desire women who are increasingly younger than they are. > Intelligent, educated women may go for a less accomplished partner for a > casual fling, but for a committed partner they typically want mates their > own age or a few years older, and at least as educated and career-driven.

If men can increase their pool size, why not women?

<comment><USER4> > If men can increase their pool size, why not women?

Women can, it is just they don't want to due to what the majority express as desirable characteristics. It is a sad state of affairs that make both men and women worse off. I know several women in their mid-thirties who adamantly refuse to consider long term partnership with perceived low status males (along lines of status, power, wealth and education).

The main issue they seem to run into is this. The small pool of highly educated, high status and wealthy men are essentially at the top of the sexual marketplace. Considering the purchasing power (excuse the term, but it makes sense) these men have, they tend to optimise for traits many men find desirable.

Finding an "equal" man in your mid-thirties as a women is very hard. Funnily enough, polygamy in societies partly resolves this distribution problem for women. The problems it causes amongst a perpetually single mass of men are catastrophic however.

<comment><USER5> >Finding an "equal" man in your mid-thirties as a women is very hard.

Finding an "equal" woman in your mid-thirties as a man who doesn't want to date down in terms of education, status, wealth, or mental health is just as difficult.

<comment><USER6> Or finding one who isn't traumatized too badly by past relationships.

<comment><USER5> I think that people who are "traumatized" by past relationships were the ones who had psychological issues of some sort to begin with, that that sort of damage happens when you are a child, and that your typical, emotionally healthy adult can get over it and force themselves to trust again, even if it happens repeatedly and with multiple partners, because the majority of people are "good" people, and you can't let people with personality disorders taint your entire view of humanity or a specific subset of it.

I went through the wringer with someone who has Borderline Personality Disorder with significant narcissistic and sociopathic traits. I can't imagine a future relationship possibly being any worse, short of a pregnancy being involved (or another person with BPD). I was shaken up for a few months, but I'm over it now. She would blame many of her negative traits and behaviors (that, from my understanding and conversations with her mom, had been a part of her personality from an early age) on past lovers, as if they were the ones responsible for damaging her. I'm sure she brought me up to the next guy(s) as well. How dare I try to get her into therapy? All she ever did was love me, after all.

<comment><USER7> Nothing more to add to your comment here besides stating I had a similar experience.

BPD, narcissistic and sociopathic traits all derived or perhaps exasperated by significant and truly awful childhood trauma.

Had me in an awful state for a year. Being introduced to intermittent reinforcement by my therapist was the moment that the penny dropped and I started to relinquish my feelings of loss and guilt.

<comment><USER8> Could you expand on the intermittent reinforcement concept in the context of an interpersonal relationship? I think it might help me.

<comment><USER7> = = =

If you'd like to contact me direct to discuss any of the below, feel free. My e-mail is

jonathon at jdtay .com

= = =

I'd be happy to.

The following articles went a lot way to assist me in getting out of an incredibly toxic, abusive relationship. If you're anything like where I was at, the addictive qualities of an abuser will leave you with manic highs and lows. It's a manipulation tactic, you and the relationship you had were nothing special. You were seduced and it's a trait shared by most people in abused relationships in every sense.

Once I realised I was being spent and manipulated and I wasn't in anyway in love, I was just being led astray. My healing process started almost immediately and the strength I never could find to finally escape from my abuser came quickly and efficiently. This isn't to say it was easy. Withdrawal symptoms are very fucking real.

Realising it's not love that you're walking away from, it's something much more sinister and primal than that. You'll find strength and self esteem to start putting yourself first. It's also at this point that you'll start to notice just how horrid the experience was and it's here that I must encourage you to seek professional help if you are not already. You'll be tearing down walls that a professional will need to help you rebuild and unpack.

In another note. If you're like me and you're a man leaving an abusive relationship with a woman. You may find it distressing that almost every article you find online was written in the angle or perspective of a female victim and a male perpetrator.

Undoubtedly this is statistically going to be the most likely scenario in most abusive relationship though I personally believe from my experiences and those of my closest family and friends. That this statistic is less weighted in favor of male abusers than you'd suspect.

The number of articles written in a light to support and assist men who've escaped emotional abusive relationships is shockingly sparse and I was hurt that there was such little content for me to personally relate to.

Both sites, Out of the Fog (i) and Psychopaths and Love (ii) have a lot of great content. Word of warning though. Psychopaths and Love's website is a piece of shit. But the content is relateable.

= = = = =

i) [http://outofthefog.website/what-not-to- do-1/2015/12/3/interm...](http://outofthefog.website/what-not-to- do-1/2015/12/3/intermittent-reinforcement)

"Intermittent Reinforcement - Intermittent Reinforcement is when rules, rewards or personal boundaries are handed out or enforced inconsistently and occasionally. This usually encourages another person to keep pushing until they get what they want from you without changing their own behavior." ...

"The personality disordered individual is often aware that he or she lacks appropriate self-control and that their abusive behavior is less than satisfactory in the eyes of the Non-PD. They may fear that their behavior will result in negative consequences, increased conflict, loss of trust and respect or even loss of the relationship. They often want to make amends and wish for a better result. However, most prefer not to confront the root of the problem and want to avoid the unattractive prospect of endless psycho-analysis, admitting their failings, being treated like a problem, being forced to take medications, being regarded as someone who has a "mental problem". So they straddle the line of acceptability, trying to maintain the status quo, occasionally trying to "make up for it" when they perceive they may have crossed the line. Once in a while, the Non-PD may blow a fuse and put their foot down or threaten to leave, but it is typically short-lived. Like the person who builds a house in the flood zone, they hope they can "ride out" the occasional storm and get what they want without having to change."

= = = = =

ii) [http://psychopathsandlove.com/intermittent- reinforcement/](http://psychopathsandlove.com/intermittent-reinforcement/)

The following article I found slightly less helpful. The language is uses is both emotive and inflamed. There are a lot of shared behaviors that can be both from some one with Borderline Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personal Disorder, a psychopath, sociopath or some one with deep, horrific trauma. It's important not to start labeling your abuser. You'll get it very wrong unless your a professional in this field. Instead just recognise the behaviors as being unhelpful and leave it at that.

This article (and almost the entire site) is purely targeted towards those who have been in relationships who are either sociopathic or psychopathic so do take this into account. It's also exclusively written from the perspective of a female victim which quite often left me with a poor taste in my mouth.

All the same, you'll find the analogies and the methods that are outlined to be familiar.

"There is nothing like the elation and bliss of new love. Especially when you believed you had found 'the one.' That took it to another level. You may have felt you never really knew what love was before. You were probably infused with incredible joy and happiness. You finally found what you were searching for, and it was even better than you ever imagined.

And then one day something unexpected happened. You got a queasy feeling that you couldn't shake. You sensed deep in your gut that he or she was pulling away. Your heart sank and your stomach clenched with fear.

In the process of the psychopathic bond, the moment when the joy at finding love turns into the fear of losing it is called the 'manipulative shift.' When that happens, the psychopath takes control. This is when the devaluation stage begins.

Fear takes away our ability to think clearly. It's an intensely powerful and uncomfortable emotion, and we want it to go away. In this case, fear was caused by the threat of losing our (supposedly) wonderful relationship. When we see someone as being the one who can take our fear away, we will give them just about anything. In this situation, hat would be the very person who caused it in the first place — the psychopath. He or she took our fear away by becoming attentive and loving again. If we asked him if something was wrong he told us that we were imagining things, or he blamed us, or made up some excuse, for his lapses"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've noticed the preferences among my male and female friends diverging over time. In college, everyone seemed to want the same thing -- a partner that was both successful and attractive. But now as we make it to our late twenties, I noticed that they "settle" differently. My female friends increasingly prefer an older guy with a great career and my male friends a younger woman who is less accomplished than they were at their age. They both still say they want the same thing -- and I totally buy it -- but it is hard to find the perfect person so sacrifices tend to be made.

I have definitely noticed the happiest people I know, in terms of romance, found their life partner in college.

<comment><USER5> >I have definitely noticed the happiest people I know, in terms of romance, found their life partner in college.

Definitely. I am almost 30, and I started dating extremely late (26). I'm happy with who I'm with right now, but I envy people who met their significant others in their teens or early 20s. They were able to grow together throughout early adulthood. I had to go through it all alone. I will do everything possible to make it so that my kids don't have to experience the same thing.

<comment><USER10> > They were able to grow together throughout early adulthood.

That's a double-edged sword. Sometimes people grow apart.

<comment><USER5> True, but better to have loved and lost, right?

<comment><USER11> That depends on what the alternative was. For those who have been pining after love but did not find any until later 'having loved and lost' might be a desirable alternative. For those who've been busy with other things - study, research, discovery, what have you - and never really thought about finding themselves a partner 'having loved and lost' would be a net-negative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm not trying to incite a flamewar here, and this will probably be downvoted to death.

Well, the argument here should be:

Men don't find education and accomplishment as attractive as women do - <USER2> find youth and beauty important also.

Therefore, in order to attract a mate, logically women should try to attract a mate when they're younger, and try to improve the way they look. They should not be trying to get more educated or accomplish more in their careers.

They can of course do whatever they want, but I have very little sympathy for people who recognize how reality is and don't try to act in ways that will optimize the probability of the outcome they want.

<comment><USER13> Philip Greenspun makes a related point: [http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in- science](http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science) "What about personal experience? The women that I know who have the IQ, education, and drive to make it as professors at top schools are, by and large, working as professionals and making 2.5-5X what a university professor makes and they do not subject themselves to the risk of being fired. With their extra income, they invest in child care resources and help around the house so that they are able to have kids while continuing to ascend in their careers. The women I know who are university professors, by and large, are unmarried and childless. By the time they get tenure, they are on the verge of infertility. Speaking of fertility... A $400/hour divorce litigator said "Knowing what I know now, I could have made a lot more money going to a bar and working for one night than I have made by going to college, law school, and working for 20 years. It turns out that I was sitting on something worth a lot more than a law degree." What's the cash value of fertility compared to working in science? ... As explained in the Massachusetts chapter of Real World Divorce, child support can be collected until a child turns 23, and, as in all other states, is tax- free. How profitable is child support? By formula (2013-2017 guidelines), $40,000 per year can be obtained from a defendant earning $250,000 per year. However, the actual costs of a child can be collected on top of that $40,000, such as health insurance, day care or nanny, and a child's cash expenses. Subtracting the USDA-estimated $8000 per year incidental costs of a child, such as housing and food, each child yields only a $32,000 per year profit. Thus a woman would need to have two children in Massachusetts with $250,000-per-year defendants in order to exceed the after-tax personal spending power of a mid-career PhD biochemist. However, the present value of the child support plaintiff's earnings are larger because the income stream can start at age 18 or younger and does not require any investment in college or graduate school."

<comment><USER14> > Knowing what I know now, I could have made a lot more money going to a bar > and working for one night than I have made by going to college, law school, > and working for 20 years

Can you explain this to me? You can earn 20 years a lawyers salary by finding a high-earning man in a bar? Sure, I can do the same with lottery tickets..

<comment><USER13> It is about child support. For example from: [https://www.therichest.com/expensive- lifestyle/money/outrage...](https://www.therichest.com/expensive- lifestyle/money/outrageous-child-support-payments-celebrities-have-to-make/) "Actor, Eddie Murphy entered into a bitter legal battle with his ex- girlfriend, ex-Spice Girl, Melanie Brown. Brown gave birth to their child in 2008 after Murphy had broken up with her while she was five months pregnant. Murphy even had a DNA test completed in order to prove he was the father. In 2009, Murphy was ordered to pay $59,950 per month for child support and he agreed to cover any of Brown's pregnancy expenses that she may have incurred."

So, US$60K per month for more than 20 years is about US$15 million. Not a bad return on one night in a bar (considering you can pay nannies to raise the kid and the spouse gets stuck for that cost too). Of course, it has to be the right (read rich enough) guy...

Of course, most child support may not be in that range, but it can still be substantial, and so more than a successful lawyer earns in 20 years of hard work and study after repaying expensive student loans.

Another quote from there may help clarify (obviously I am not endorsing this heartless gold digger strategy even if what this lawyer says may be true economically): "A divorce litigator put it a little more simply: "There is no reason for a woman to go to medical school. If she wants to have the spending power of a doctor she can just have sex with three doctors." (see the Wisconsin chapter for how the arithmetic works out) In some states, though not Wisconsin, a plaintiff's own earnings or earning potential can reduce the potential profits from child support. "A degree in poetry is a lot better than a degree in medicine when you're a child support plaintiff," observed one litigator, and added "for a woman with a functioning reproductive system, the decision to attend college and work is seldom an economically rational one in the United States.""

Is it that hard to to imagine three high-earning young male Googlers ending up in such a situation of supporting one woman with a combined Google-level salary in child support?

Perhaps another reason for a basic income (one which includes payment for children) is to change the divisive nature of child support litigation?

By the way, some related comedy from the 1960s (not quite the same idea but in that direction): "Buona Sera, Mrs. Campbell" [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062767/reviews](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062767/reviews) "[Gina Lollobrigida] plays the mother of the lovely Janet Margolin, whose American soldier father was supposedly killed during World War II [or so she was told]. The thing is, Gina isn't sure who the father was, since she was friendly with three soldiers at the time, (played by Peter Lawford, Phil Silvers and Telly Savalas), and all are very much alive. Each of the three thinks he is the father and has been financially supporting the girl in secret for over 20 years. Trouble and hilarity ensue when the three men and their wives return to the Italian village for an Army reunion, and Gina has to juggle all six of them while keeping her daughter from finding out the truth."

<comment><USER14> Ah I see, but then I return to my "lottery tickets" example; You can make millions with a single ticket, but there is no reproducible strategy for finding a winning ticket that doesn't exceed the payout in cost.

I'm sure plenty of women have tried it with Murphy, yet it was Mel B that ended up in a relationship with him, a well-know pop artist already. "one night in a bar" is misleading if there are requirements in getting into that bar, and being successful.

How can a woman guarantee bearing the children of 3 doctors? How many men would they need to have unprotected sex with until success? If this became a popular strategy, it would be easy to exploit for sex with male contraceptives.

> change the divisive nature of child support litigation

perhaps, but not to punish the child. Of course, regulation of female reproductive rights is a can of worms too.. Maybe a male-infertility pill/device might be a better idea?..

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is this a problem that needs to be solved, though?

I see a dichotomy here. On one hand, we would like to have more women in the "educated" and therefore, high-income workforce. This, in turn, causes imbalance in the dating market and may force the women in the high-income bracket to make a concession(by lowering their standards, etc). On the other, we can go back to the model where men dominate the high-income workforce and many women can "marry up" when they're younger. I would pick the former than the latter any day. Equality of opportunity trumps the equality of results in my world.

Also, beyond a certain point, money just doesn't make the other person more attractive. I would rather date a caring jobless younger woman than an abusive doctor with several degrees. I make enough to pursue my dreams and leisures. Articles like this actually seem very insensitive for the men of my situation(previously poor, now making comfortably but didn't date much in 20s), as it purports that I, as a man in dating market, is worth as much as the amount of money I make. I hope that's not case for most people.

Think about it. This is a "crisis" because there aren't high-earning men that these high-earning women would allow themselves to date? It doesn't necessarily trigger schadenfreude to me, if not a profound sadness due to a nature of the "problem". As a single man of early thirties, this sort of article horrifies and saddens me. You need to find your own happiness and maybe it shouldn't depend on other people.

Jon Birger's Date-onomics(2015) discusses this phenomenon[1] pretty astutely, if you're interested in reading further data.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Date-onomics-Dating-Became- Lopsided-N...](https://www.amazon.com/Date-onomics-Dating-Became-Lopsided- Numbers/dp/076118208X)

<comment><USER16> It's one of the drivers causing all developed countries to have a fertility rate below the replacement rate.

Japan's population, which is shrinking, worries about an aging majority without a base of young healthy workers who can support the economy and social programs. They are trying to mend this in the medium term by encouraging more women into the workforce, but, as we see from this article, that may have the unintended consequence of exacerbating the fertility crisis even further.

<comment><USER17> That's a problem for Japan, but not rich western countries which can simply accept more immigration.

<comment><USER18> There is nothing simple about accepting more immigration, just look to Brexit for that.

<comment><USER16> Or Germany. It was just announced today that Merkel was unable to form a majority coalition after the recent election:

> Merkel was weakened after a September election as voters angry with her > decision in 2015 to open Germany's borders to more than a million asylum > seekers punished her conservatives by voting for the far-right Alternative > for Germany (AfD) party

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany- politics/merkel-f...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany- politics/merkel-fourth-term-in-doubt-as-german-coalition-talks-fail- idUSKBN1DJ0I3)

<comment><USER19> > Or Germany. It was just announced today that Merkel was unable to form a > majority coalition after the recent election

One has nothing to do with the other.

The political landscape in Germany is transforming, and has been since long before the refugee crisis. Previously typical majority constellations have gone away (and won't come back, AfD or no), and the parties are struggling to find a place in this new reality.

The failure of this round of coalition talks was due to one party not understanding that they need to be more flexible in the new political reality.

My personal suspicion is that, should it come to reelections, they would be punished for their stubbornness.

<comment><USER16> I directly quotes Reuters.

> Merkel was weakened after a September election as voters angry with her > decision in 2015 to open Germany's borders to more than a million asylum > seekers punished her conservatives by voting for the far-right Alternative > for Germany (AfD) party

She had trouble forming a coalition because her party's share was further weakened after the vote, presumably because of 2015 migration crisis and the rise of AfD, requiring a potential partnership with 2 different parties, at different ends of the political spectrum, in addition to Merkel's.

<comment><USER19> > I directly quotes Reuters.

No doubt.

Reuters still fails to see (or report) the forest for the trees in this instance.

> She had trouble forming a coalition because her party's share was further > weakened after the vote, presumably because of 2015 migration crisis and the > rise of AfD,

AfD and its initial growth predates the migration crisis (but had originally had very different political goals and actors). You're right of course, they benefited from it. But I think the lack of a far-right party in the German political spectrum was always a distortion of reality, which has now been corrected. My gut feeling is that there will always be ten-ish percent of the population who subscribe to such ideas. They've merely become politically visible now.

The fate of CDU/CSU merely repeats what SPD already suffered with Die Linke more than a decade ago: a contender further towards the political extreme, who will make previously common coalitions impossible. I've repeatedly read the claim that such a development was overdue for CDU/CSU. For that reason, it's generally assumed that AfD (and its effect on feasibility of particular coalitions) won't go away.

I further think there's an underlying issue that politics in Germany has become complacent and removed from the people, deeming it unnecessary to justify and explain their politics to the public. The rise of AfD seems to be one of the reactions, in a vague parallel to Trumpism.

In fact I consider this the one redeeming aspect of AfD's entry to parliament: the parties suddenly find themselves forced to justify their choices. I've already observed that effect in the political discourse.

> requiring a potential partnership with 2 different parties, at different > ends of the political spectrum, in addition to Merkel's.

It's worse than that: three different parties (you overlooked CSU). And CSU is in full campaing mode, as there's a state-level election in Bavaria less than a year away, and CSU is threatened with losing their 50-year absolute majority. Plus there's a battle going on for the seat of CSU chairman.

Interestingly, the two antipodes, CSU and Grüne, weren't yet ready to abort the talks, and had in fact both made painful concessions in order to attempt a coalition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > But for accomplished women who successfully traverse the waters of a mating > pool unfairly stacked against them, mating triumph at the individual level > typically takes precedence over loftier goals of reducing societal-level > inequality when the two come into conflict.

It's wrong to characterize the pool as "unfairly" stacked against them; they could choose to date men with lower incomes or less education.

<comment><USER21> Yeah, it's assortive mating. It's not that the mating pool is stacked against them - it's that their self assessment of their own "rank" is too high. They assume men want in a woman what women want in a man, and for the most part men don't care about the (potential) wife's career.

<comment><USER22> > for the most part men don't care about the (potential) wife's career.

There might even be an inverse correlation - the more successful the man is (hence the more money he earns, and the more hours he works), the more he would prefer his partner to take the lion's share of childcare and house- making, _and_ also be able to pay for it.

Ideally, of course, neither parent would have to work, but that's even more unrealistic for most of the population.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Not the usual sort of discussion I expect to see on Edge but welcome nonetheless. Fertility services, reproductive tech is very hot right now. With women who heed the countdown of their biological clocks electing to freeze their eggs at $50K, it could also be considered a growth sector. So why not provide the spectrum of services a single professional would need to raise a family. From quality genetically screened gamete seed banks. Making it as easy to order 23 chromosomes as you would pick out a new laptop on Newegg. To generous paid maternity care and leave. Nanny, lactation consulting, on-call pediatrics, daycare. As well as transportation, grocery delivery, nursery installation and much more.

Of course all of this is readily available via bespoke services for those that can afford it. So how to we extend all the necessary services to a middle class single professional woman?

If it truly is a crisis that birth rates are falling in the developed world. And restricted immigration results in further population skew. Then taxpayers must begin the debate on subsidizing reproductive and childcare services. Because traditional "nudge" messaging and policy seems to neglect where organic demand lies: having children and career, without the necessity or social norm of marriage.

<comment><USER24> You assume single parent upbringing is optimal? Why are 1. the world's population (as opposed to 'developed world's' population), and 2., the best for the child, not considered?

<comment><USER25> Because capitalism. If single wealthy women want children for... god knows what reason, there are enough studies to show that children _need_ their parents _throughout_ their childhoods to develop optimally, and having one or even worse both of them sequestered away in careers while they grow up in daycare is harmful. But if single wealthy women want children they will get them, they have the financial resources to push the economy into making it happen one way or another. You don't fight economics with morals postmortem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Better tools to connect women and men could have a major impact and increase the chances that couples connect with each other. Tinder and other dating sites are absolute shit (plenty of literature on their problems for both men and women out there) and in person interactions are becoming more rare. Improving these tools might help some of the people who would otherwise not connect or find suitable mates to do so, though it can only address the problem partially.

<comment><USER27> The problem isn't the tools, the problem is human nature. The way we select mates just doesn't work the way we tell ourselves it does, and the reality is that vary many people will never be compatible with anyone.

In the past, and in other cultures, this is solved by significant social pressure forcing people together.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This problem is very evident amongst single female friends who are just out of medical residency. The ones that are married mostly met their spouses in undergrad but the others are having a lot of trouble finding men of similar education level.

<comment><USER29> My wife is applying for residency now and it's become clear to me that American medical education just isn't fit for human consumption in general. I'm not at all surprised that your friends are having trouble with dating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> My experience trying to date women in physics and comp sci says this is mostly a crisis amongst non stem women.

<comment><USER31> Of course, because in STEM it's the opposite: an oversupply of (educated) men.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Where I think this will go is pretty easy, as it happens already among the less-educated.

Women will select a mate based more on looks than money, have a kid or two, then divorce him (aka "starter marriages".) Child support from the male will probably not matter for women who make enough money, but might still be a useful tool to keep the ex-hubby in line.

This is probably a simpler, if more cynical, means than freezing ova for the "perfect" man to fertilize.

And while men at the tippy-top might take a pass on divorcees with kids, for most men beyond a certain age, it's a fact of life, and frankly, we have decades of cultural brain-washing that makes such attitudes seem sexist.

</comment><comment><USER33> Interestingly no discussion of what must be a similar crisis among less- educated men.

<comment><USER34> That would mean trying to understand and optimize for men's reproductive strategy. As far as I can tell, the western world seems mostly concerned with female reproductive strategy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I wonder if it is any different in other countries with better health coverage and more family friendly policies.

</comment><comment><USER36> You mean it is ok to be biologically inspired for your mating choices? Who knew?

</comment><comment><USER24> Hardly a crisis...

<comment><USER37> Care to explain why you feel that way? From your statement I hope that you're extremely enlightened on the topic or have first hand experience being an educated woman trying to date.

<comment><USER5> No one is entitled to being in a relationship. No one is entitled to having a partner.

<comment><USER38> Having a lot of single childless people is not good for society.

<comment><USER39> I was wondering why this comment was downvoted, and realized that it's probably because of the "childless" bit, which is a pretty conservative attitude.

But there is an important point here. People who are in a healthy family and have dependents don't do things like suicide bomb or go on mass shootings. Those are the acts of desperate, miserable men.

I'm not advocating nuclear families, but when I hear about the insane gender disparity in places like China, I worry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Who says women have to date men?

<comment><USER14> In biology, mating (or mateing in British English) is the pairing of either opposite-sex or hermaphroditic organisms, usually for the purposes of sexual reproduction

\-- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Needs citations

</comment><comment><USER42> Anyone else think this article was going to be about chess?

Man HN has my mind so warped I thought this article was going to be about women and chess.

<comment><USER43> Seems to fit. "Unable to secure the smothered mate, she had to settle for the backrank mate."

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I'm impressed HN — not a single mention yet of hypergamy, SMV or Red Pill theory!

(and now I've gone and ruined it)

<comment><USER45> Always keep Law 38 in mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Why is the onus of lowering their standards being pushed on educated women? One of the issues the author states is that men increasingly go for younger women instead of ones their own age. Why do we value youth and beauty instead of education and accomplishments?

<comment><USER47> Because biology. When it comes to mating what someone is is more important than what they know. Which biologically makes sense.

<comment><USER5> I am a firm believer in humanity's ability to overcome our biology.

<comment><USER47> So are religious leaders and mothers and Soviet social planners. But they are perpetually disappointed.

Because what is humanity without it's biology?

Instinct doesn't belong to the individual, it belongs to the species. And life doesn't care atoll about abstract moral principal. That's just syntactic sugar to help us manage and grow the hive given biological impulse. When we overcome a natural impulse guess what? It's a natural impulse doing that too. If we overcome all natural impulse (how?) this species is finished and are something else, certainly not "humanity" at that point.

Right now what _really_ drives us around is 10's of thousands of years older than the beginning of writing and cities. At least.

<comment><USER5> >If we overcome all natural impulse (how?) this species is finished and are something else, certainly not "humanity" at that point.

What's wrong with that?

<comment><USER47> It might be inevitable that we give rise to intelligent machines, become machines and that's it. Nothing wrong with it.

But at present we are behaviorally closer to monkeys even if we dress up in suits and have rules and values. Which don't (unlike what we generally conceive) have any eternal significance beyond being various versions of conventions such as "who gets to pick the lice off the alpha male first".

Point being, what we are is the reality of what we have to work with. Mating included. Puritan scolders will forever fail and life will keep right on going until the machine (if that ever happens).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Moving to USA (NYC) – Need Advice - <AUTHOR> Hello All, I need a bit of advice as my research on google has not cleared my doubts. I am based out of Hong Kong as a C++ and Java developer (10 years exp) and my company (an Investment Bank) has decided to move my role to New York. I have persuaded my bosses to relocate me to NYC and they have agreed. Though the HR talks have not yet happened regarding salaries, i would like to prepare and set mine and their's expectations.
After a lot of research on google/glassdoor/etc, i have come to the following conclusions: 1. I might not get the best market salaries (Asian/NYC being high cost center/non native English speaker/first timer to USA/etc) 2. I should range my salary expectations in a range of 130K-150K just to be safe in the zone and not miss out on the job. Is this fair? 3. I have no option but to work in NYC and live in NJ. It seems that this is the sanest thing to do. 4. Taxes being high compared in NYC, I can safely assume 40% of my salary being cut. So that leaves me in a range of 78K-90K after tax. Assuming my rental will be around 2k and monthly expenses around 1k, that would leave me with 42K-54K. This i believe should be more than enough. 5. My life-work balance might go for a toss given that longer hours are the norm in NYC (Wall Street). Am i right? 6. Given that i will be moving to USA on an L1 B visa? (not a senior management guy) i can apply for a GC (as in Green Card, not the other GC) as soon as i join and get it in around 2-3 years. Am i right?
My preparation for my move has not yet started and i am sure that i will have more questions. Since i have no one in USA (friends/family/etc) i am completely reliant on YC.
Please let me know on the above points and if any of my assumptions are wrong. Also please feel free to advice me on anything that you think would be a appropriate.
Warm regards from Hong Kong... <comment><USER2> Regarding your question around becoming a Legal Permanent Resident (LPR, that is, a green card holder): The L1B non-managerial category usually processes slower than L1A (senior managers and executives). This is most often because L1B holders fall under the EB2 (employer-based, 2nd priority) permanent residency category. If your employer's immigration lawyer has the experience to do so and sees that you meet the definition, see if you can get classified as a "functional manager" (meaning that you are primarily responsible for a critical part of the business), which would put you in the L1A visa category and give you a much easier path to EB1 LPR status. Note that L1 visas, whether A or B, have a general cap of 5 or 7 years before the holder must leave the United States.

Your employer applies for LPR on your behalf. When using employment- or investment-based visas, you will quickly find that all paperwork has to be done by your employer or corporation and you're just along for the ride.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks techsupporter. I am not sure if i would be applicable for EB1, since i would be functioning as a senior developer (of some critical SW). I guess it would more likely be EB2. However, maybe in a year or so if my profile expands, then maybe i can re negotiate and try to get an EB1.

By the way, do you by any chance know what are the likely time frames of getting a LPR for both EB1 and EB2 given that i would apply for LPR as soon as i join office?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You should speak to a US tax adviser in Hong Kong ASAP.

You will be taxed on your world-wide income.

You will need to report all your assets - every single account number, name/identifier, and the maximum balance during the year to both the Treasury and the IRS.

You will also need to report every financial account such as PayPal, spread- betting, online gambling, stock trading a/c, fx trading a/c etc. to both the Treasury and the IRS.

You need to compute all interest, dividends and capital gains for the calendar year (HK tax year runs to April) in order to pay tax due to the IRS even though there is no tax in HK.

Some of your assets and accounts may have to be shut down as US persons/taxpayers may be forbidden from operating those accounts e.g. spread- betting.

Depending on your personal situation and net worth, the above may or may not influence your decision to relocate.

Good luck either way!

<comment><USER4> there was a recent article on Blomberg news about american expats giving up their citizenship, and the burden of paperwork was cited as one of the key drivers for the rich but not super rich types in HK and Singapore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hey, I've lived in NYC and I currently live in Westchester, a county directly above it.

If you're travelling to Manhattan, I'd like to echo what another commenter said in that New Jersey is _not_ your only _or_ your best option. You can find affordable real estate (especially with your budget of $2k) within Westchester.

A lot of people travel from New Jersey to Manhattan within a a half hour - this is a pretty good commute. But you can still live within New York if you live in one of the lower towns of Westchester and travel using Metro North. It's a higher end train system than the subway, and it goes to Grand Central station from just about every conceivable town that would be a commutable option for you.

New York and New Jersey are fundamentally different. Yes, both can work for you, but one will fit your personality more than another. The outer boroughs and the lower towns of Westchester have a distinct "NY" feel that is still very urban and metropolitan (despite having a lot of suburbs) because it is so close to the city and within the same state. New Jersey isn't _bad_ because it's not quite like this, but it is _different_ \- you should hang out around both if it's realistic for you so you can see for yourself which population suits you more. Coming from Hong Kong, you'll want to be as close to the city as possible, I think.

I highly, highly encourage you to not just limit yourself to New Jersey. Good luck :)

</comment><comment><USER6> Re: Green Card, you might also consider the Green Card lottery. [https://www.dvlottery.state.gov](https://www.dvlottery.state.gov) I know that it seems like a long shot (and it is) but I got it on my first try and a friend of mine got it on the first try. Applying does not cost anything and takes about 10 minutes. The application period starts in October I think.

<comment><USER4> I know through friends that if you apply for a green card once and don't get it, then it tends to raise a yellow glad on the next try. I don't know if this lottery would raise such a flag but I'd do research on it before blindly applying.

<comment><USER6> I think that you are talking about the standard way of applying for a green where it is imaginable that a rejection would raise flags during later applications. But in the lottery, if you don't get it, it's not that you were denied, it's just that you did not win it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think the biggest question you should ask yourself is "do you want to move to NYC, or find a new job in Hong Kong?" I personally would rather be in Hong Kong unless the job in NY were truly exceptional. If you want to go to NY, go to NY -- the finances/etc. will work out, but unless you have some specific fixed expenses, it's probably not the primary consideration.

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem is i am working in IT. For an IT guy moving slowly from low cost center to medium cost center and from medium cost center to high cost center is equivalent to a successful career progression.

Being in NYC means that i would be working on really interesting projects and i will have more freedom with my work and the decisions that i can make while programming.

<comment><USER7> That sounds like a strong factor in favor of NYC. The optimum would probably be having some experience in NYC for a few years and then potentially moving back to HK in a more senior role?

</comment></comment></comment><comment> T-hawk Glad to see NJ as a living option. It's great and highly underrated compared to the trendier boroughs. I've lived on the NJ Gold Coast and worked in Manhattan for my entire professional life, and quite happy with it.

There's no need to live way out in the NJ suburbs with a lengthy train commute; there's quite decently affordable apartments within range of the Path subway in Jersey City for a 10 minute ride to downtown Wall Street. Or try Hoboken, a bit more costly but with great atmosphere and nightlife if you're into that.

Bonus: NJ sales tax is less, and you dodge the NYC income tax, so that saves another couple $k per year.

<comment><USER8> NJtransit and path trains are terrible. That's the problem. LIRR is so much nicer...

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I just moved to NJ myself and you can find very nice places for 1200 or so. You will probably find that 1000$ a month for living expenses is very low. I would raise that to 1500 a month.

Regarding your green card, are you a Chinese citizen? If so, be prepared to wait a very long time. Citizens of India, China, Mexico and the Philippines are artificially restricted in how many green cards are handed out a year- took me 7 years although now I think it's more like 5. Also iirc, citizens of these four countries are not eligible for the green card lottery.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for all your comments. Here is what i have got 1\. Might not matter, should auto-correct itself in a year or so. 2\. Still not sure about my expectations wrt asking for 130K-150K ? I don't want to miss the boat while i do not want to get in at a low, since getting rises is really hard nowadays. 3\. Thanks for all the wonderful information about neighboring places. Wow, I have a lot of options and not just NJ. 4\. if 130K-150K works out, then i should be fine with the after tax savings. Whew!! 5\. Might have to do some long hours in the beginning, might tail off as i get more exposure. 6\. Will follow up with my company's lawyers.

Also, I remember reading a blog about a person's experience while moving to USA. He mentioned about SSN, DMV license, Moving his savings to USA, Credit ratings, etc. Can someone point me to the url again or send me appropriate urls where this information has been already mentioned.

</comment><comment><USER10> I want to start off by saying that I am a recent college grad and our expectations of living conditions might be slightly different, but Ill add what I can. But I am a native New Jersyian so I have some idea of what I'm talking about :)

3\. This is definitely not the case, especially if you have no family to support. Most of my friends who have started work in NYC earn anywhere from 75-100k and they live comfortably in Brooklyn. They probably will not accruing much savings, but making 130-150k living in Brooklyn is very, very affordable.

4\. You will not pay 2k a month in rent. If you live in Brooklyn it will be max 1500 and in NJ it will probably be closer to 1k. You would only be paying ~2k if you want to live in Manhattan itself. 40% is probably about right for taxes maybe a little high.

That's all I can really add for now, but hope that help! And if you have any follow up questions feel free to comment below

<comment><USER11> $1500 max in Brooklyn and live where? While it certainly depends on what part of Brooklyn and what type of rental you can tolerate, $1500 is low. The average monthly rent in north Brooklyn is now over $3,000 - [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/realestate/costly-rents- pu...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/realestate/costly-rents-push- brooklynites-to-queens.html?pagewanted=all)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> 1 - I wouldn't say it because you're a non native English speaker/first timer to USA [non native English speakers are one of the most common things around here]. I would say it because things are not going well in NYC at all.

2 - That's fine, but don't get frustrated if you get something between 75K - 100K.

3 - Check Brooklyn and Queens, maybe Harlem. Commute is not a problem here.

4 - 25% to 27%.

5 - It really depends on your company. Don't forget the Fall and Winter's depression and loneliness. But don't worry, wait for the Summer [Oh yeah the Summer - Hellyeah!].

6 - I'm not sure.

<comment><USER4> 4 - aren't you forgetting state income tax?

<comment><USER13> And if you live in NYC, NYC has its own income tax in addition to the NY State income tax.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> You certainly have a choice about where to live. You can easily live in a decent part of Manhattan on 130k - you'll pay more for less space, but have more time (shorter commute) and likely a better social life. If you're working for a bank, the Financial District is actually a relatively cheap place to live.

If you do decide to go that route, be very careful with real estate brokers, who are the scum of the earth and love taking advantage of immigrants. You can find some decent "no [broker] fee" listings on streeteasy.com.

<comment><USER15> I am pretty sure the OP should be able to negotiate with his company some relocation package, including the bank finding for him a temporary accommodation for some times (one month would be the minimum, maybe the OP could have this up to 6 months).

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> You certainly have a choice. You can easily live in a decent part of Manhattan on 130k - you'll pay more for less space, but have more time (shorter commute) and likely a better social life. If you're at a bank - the Financial District is actually a relatively cheap place to live.

If you do decide to go that route, be very careful with real estate brokers, who are the scum of the earth and love taking advantage of immigrants. You can find some decent "no [broker] fee" listings on streeteasy.com.

</comment><comment><USER16> "I should range my salary expectations in a range of 130K-150K just to be safe in the zone and not miss out on the job. Is this fair? ... Assuming my rental will be around 2k"

130K would be a bit too much. I know developers who get paid around 100K for a normal development gig at an investment bank. And 2K is also a bit too much for rent. Try to live in Chinatown, or at least Queens - they're definitely less than other parts of the city.

</comment><comment><USER17> You can save a ton of your living expense by taking advantage of the Metro- North commuter railroad which runs all the way up into the Hudson Valley, into Dutchess county where it's far cheaper to live. At the expense of an hour's commute each way to the city. Google Beacon, NY which has a train station about an hour from the city by train if you're interrested in saving money this way.

</comment><comment><USER18> > 3\. I have no option but to work in NYC and live in NJ. It seems that this > is the sanest thing to do.

Hey now, there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's preferable. If you live in Jersey City, Hoboken, etc. you're on the Path. That means you're in the city in 10 minutes for minimal cost. Oh, you also pay less in taxes. How do you beat that?

</comment><comment><USER19> Hi, others have covered financial concerns.

I can try to answer 5).

Work hours probably depends on your assigned team. Probably best to get all of the details firsthand from your potential team than to guess.

Now in terms of Asian/Asian-American culture in NYC, it is generally split into three groups; a) the old-timers and descendants living in Flushing and Chinatown, b) the professional's who moved into NYC to work for the banks, c) the professional's who moved into NYC to work at Silicon Alley/Media/Publishing etc.

Group a) are the people with the most Chinese culture; every weekend, extended families go have dim-sum outings at the Flushing mall with multiple round tables of family relatives. However, Flushing is a mixture of Chinese people who came to the city during the 70's and a new wave of immigrants in the 90's and 00's. So you have a eclectic mix of Chinese people who work in restaurants, aren't as educated and also the sons and daughters of kids who were brought up in the old-timers old school Chinese household who worked their way up through the restaurant chains and became owners and sent their kids to good colleges. The old timers' culture and attitude closely resembles Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Group b) are the INTJ and class-A personalities. There's a good mixture of both ABCs (American Born Chinese) and FOBs (first generation) in this crowd. A lot of my friends in this group are very ambitious and try to climb the management ladder by either obtaining a prestigious business degree (e.g., going to Wharton) or by working very long hours or by working on guangxi. As a result, socializing is very superficial. Some of the people I kept in touch since college or hang out with on weekends, I find that I hardly really know them at all; they best represent the 'jing' of Chinese people as in Shanghai and the Mainlander attitude of always being calculating for self-preservation.

Group c) are generally the more Americanized Chinese people as they work in non-traditional fields. Although the degree varies depending on where they grew up and their upbringing. You might find some Asian Americans are willing to hang out with both Americans and Asians; some will only hang out with Asian Americans but no international Asians; some will not hang out with any Asians at all. The best way to describe this is the attitude of certain Hong Kongers toward Mainlander immigrants in Hong Kong, some will accept them, some think that they are superior because of their Euro-centric upbringing despite the fact that we all are Chinese.

But in general, everyone is very nice in NYC as it is an very international city. However, you'll have to make an effort to make new friends as it is a big city where everyone hurries from one subway station to the next. But the friends you make once you do make a real friend, you can generally count on the person.

I hope this helps and this is only my opinion, best of luck to your transition,

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks noname123 for your comments....

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> > _i can apply for a GC (as in Green Card, not the other GC)_

What's this other GC?

I looked at 146 GC's here:

[http://www.acronymfinder.com/GC.html](http://www.acronymfinder.com/GC.html)

and none of them make sense in this context.

Edit: The joke is quite funny -- now that I get it.

<comment><USER21> not in context at all, but considering his BG I thought Garbage Collector :)

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks dewiz... apologies cantrevealname...

While typing GC, i could'nt help myself adding that... thought i was being smart :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why not stay in HK and keep more money?

<comment><USER22> Also consider that you'll be required to pay income tax even after renouncing your U.S. citizenship, should you ever wish to leave for greener pastures.

[http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-10-15/us- ca...](http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-10-15/us-canada- news/34471897_1_green-card-treaty-country-citizenship)

<comment><USER4> I don't think this duty artists if you limit yourself to green card status and not citizenship.

<comment><USER23> Green card holders also have to pay US tax on worldwide income. Note that if you permanently move out the US you are supposed to relinquish your green card. The last time I looked at this (~2 years ago) the guidelines were that being out of the country for up to six months was okay, and up to a year required official notice, and longer than that was only acceptable under exceptional conditions.

<comment><USER24> That's right -- a GC-holder moving out of the US would normally relinquish the GC and stop paying US taxes at that point.

I don't recommend trying to hold onto a GC while living outside of the US... this is one of those areas where there's no strict rule on what's "okay", just vague guidelines, so if you are trying to hang on to a GC while living outside the country for a few years by visiting twice a year, a DHS official in a cranky mood is perfectly able to decide you're "cheating" and eject you from the country... which will not be a good thing to have on your record if you ever want to come back.

I'm American but moved to France w/ my non-American wife, and we tried to hang on to her GC for a while like this... but it was far too nerve-wracking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Let me add some perspective as an expat (Australian) living in NYC.

1\. You may not be a native English speaker but honestly your English (based on your writing here) is fine. Assuming your conversational (rather than written) English is at a similar level, it should be a non-issue.

As to whether it will hurt you in terms of your organization and negotiating renumeration, that I can't say. It depends on your employer.

2\. As for your salary expectations, different companies have different structures/mixes with regards to base salary, bonus, stock and other benefits. Your salary range doesn't seem unreasonable however.

3\. Where to live. OK, this one is a lot more complicated and largely comes down to what tradeoffs you're willing to make.

If you live in NJ you're basically looking for something along the PATH line that goes into Wall Street. The problem with PATH is it doesn't run after a certain hour and doesn't have great service on the weekends. I know people who live in NJ who drive into the city on weekends. This means living in NJ can mean a more isolated existence (socially/culturally) and/or owning a car, which is an expense that you don't really want (IMHO).

If you live in NYC you pay a city income tax, this is true, but IMHO it's the one tax I don't mind paying because you get a ton of services for that money: 24 hour subway, a responsive police force (eg it took the NYPD 15 minutes to show up on a Saturday night to disable an unattended car alarm outside my building), a fairly new (and seemingly popular) city bike program ($95/year).

Working on Wall Street makes living in Westchester or Long Island more difficult as those commuter lines generally go into Grand Central or Penn Station (respectively), which means you have the train ride and then a subway ride. That's a long commute.

Living uptown means a relatively long subway ride. Upper East Side means catching the 4/5/6, which is the worst and most crowded line. Queens is relatively inconvenient too.

So, if I were you and wanted to live in NYC I would look at downtown Brooklyn or somewhere around Chinatown. Get a small apartment, pay $2k+ for it but have the subway, have a shorter commute (you could walk from Chinatown) and be around more people.

4\. I don't think 40% is accurate. The marginal rate might be that but it won't be 40% total. Living in NYC you pay the city income tax but the NY state income tax (which you also pay) is lower than the NJ state income tax IIRC.

5\. I can't speak to the working conditions on Wall Street but my understanding is that Asian working hours are pretty high anyway so I wouldn't expect anything more than that.

6\. Processing times for Green Cards come down to what category you're in and your country of _birth_. This is super-important. Hong Kong, I believe, is treated differently to mainland China (the latter having much longer processing times).

EB1 category is hard and unless you have a PhD, are published and cited and you've been in a position of judging other people's work in that regard, you won't meet the bar. Being a "senior developer" certainly isn't enough.

This leaves you in EB2, which is employer-sponsored. If that interests you, negotiate that as part of your relocation (that they begin that process straight away). Expect it to take at least a year or two.

But in all matters visa and immigration related, make sure you speak to a qualified immigration attorney rather than relying on any advice you get here or elsewhere.

Some additional things to consider:

\- Living outside the city makes not having a car more awkward. Factor this in as an expense;

\- Don't make a decision based on relatively small differences in income tax rates. There are far more important factors than this such as being happy where you live;

\- When you move here, take a sublet and figure out where you want to live;

\- As part of a relocation package, get your employer to pay a broker fee for finding an apartment and ideally give you 2+ months of corporate housing to find your feet. Broker fees on rentals are typically 15% (of the annual rent) in Manhattan and a month's rent outside of Manhattan;

\- Even if you have to pay that fee yourself, it's well worth paying (IMHO). It'll save you a ton of time and if you get a good broker you won't waste your time with buildings you can't get into (no credit here will initially be a problem) and you should get something below market enough to justify the cost if you stay in it for 2+ years;

\- Take a 2 year lease when you get an apartment instead of 1. It's easy to get rid of a reasonably priced apartment if you change your mind;

\- Cathay Pacific has 4 direct flights a day from JFK to HKG (and they've just added one from Newark). I love Cathay and fly that route a lot;

\- You might get an L1B but next year, as a backup, get an H1B. You never know how long a GC will take;

\- You shouldn't need to take a sub-market salary to move here. Don't lowball yourself just to make sure you get here. If HR wants you to pick a number, go _high_. You can always come back and say you're somewhat guessing because you're not familiar with the market if you're way off. It's perfect actually.

Hope that helps.

<comment><AUTHOR> cletus, thanks for the wonderful post. It has lots of information and i will read it multiple times to soak it all in. Regarding location, I would definitely prefer a place where people can walk/use public transport heavily/etc rather than rely on cars. Not only it saves money, but i personally feel that seeing fellow people and having a good level of interaction with different people is really the KEY to a happy life. You would never feel isolated and when in stress, it lets you see things in the correct perspective.

for now i have some queries regarding your comment, please indulge me if you can spare few minutes: \- not sure about the terminology, but by sublet you mean a very temporary accommodation before moving into a rented place? \- can you please clarify a bit more on why 2 years is preferable than 1 year? does re contracting every year has a recurring expense? \- Is it possible to get H1B visa while having a L1B visa as you have suggested? I thought that would not be possible? In case it is, will the H1B sponsor be the same company that is my L1B?

Also, your last point is entirely valid and it makes perfect sense. Thanks for that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm just going to comment on number 3, in depth, b/c I don't have insight on your other questions and if I was in your shoes I would absolutely want as much detail as possible (apologies if this is too long-winded for you).

As others have said, NJ is not your only option and definitely not even the best option. The options include: the outer boroughs (The Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island); countless towns in Nassau County, Long Island (right on LIRR, the commuter rail that shoots east of the city); countless towns in Westchester County far closer to the city than, say, Dutchess County, which another commenter suggested (no offense to that person!) (Westchester is north of NYC and on the northern commuter rail MetroNorth); countless towns in Fairfield County, CT (again, "north" of the city and on MetroNorth); and then New Jersey as well, which is just as good an option as those other ones depending on how close you can get to the city.

The only place it _might_ be harder to live comfortably is Manhattan, but that's not really true either. If you're pulling down 78k after tax--the low- end of the range you cited, which I can't comment on so take all this w/ that in mind--you have plenty of money to live on and live well on unless you have some major fixed monthly expenses (people in the states might have student loans, for instance, that would eat up material portions of their income or you want to save a bunch of your post-tax salary (which of course makes sense 10 years into your career)). Still, you can live AND save at 78k post tax in some pretty good areas around and even IN NYC, which brings me to...

There are absolutely apartments in Manhattan that rent for close to $2k/month in fairly PRIME locations that are no more than a 20 to 40-minute commute to Wall Street, including the Upper West Side (don't let people tell you it's no- man's land--it's not!) and even downtown in the Village and elsewhere (case in point, I just rented a (small, but not Hong Kong small 1 bedroom) apartment to an NYC Law Student for $2300/month in Greenwich Village, just south of Wash Square and I felt fortunate to get that much rent for the place). I understand that 2300 is north of 2k, but it's not much when you're talking about 78k post-tax income.

Couple of more things... If you don't know anybody, the city can get lonely (odd when there are thousands of people right outside your door, but happens all the time as you might know living in HK). That said, it's far better to live in the city, surrounded by people, than to jump on the aforementioned MetroNorth, Long Island Railroad (LIRR) or NJ Transit at 9pm, after a long day of work, only to arrive home to a suburban apartment, go to bed and repeat the cycle.

Assuming the 78k post-tax turns out to be true, if I could sit you down and argue for the "right" choice, I would strongly advocate living in the city, in a neighborhood where there is healthy street life and where you avoid a long commute (anything more than 45 minutes (literally from the moment you step out your front door and arrive at your office) would be a deal breaker).

Using that as the rule, I recommend you only look at very close-in suburbs (some of the closer towns in those places I mentioned above on the commuter rails) or in one of the boroughs themselves (which is what I would even more strongly suggest).

Two final comments: getting an apartment in NYC (Manhattan or outer boroughs) often comes with a broker's fee. It sucks, but most people pay it and it can be fairly expensive (normally 10-15% of one YEAR's rent (i.e., thousands of additional dollars out of your pocket that you'll never see again)).

Again, though, if you have some savings it's absolutely worth paying the fee if a) you can't find a place that charges no fee (it's possible, but it's not the norm and many native New Yorkers struggle with finding a place when they go this route) or b) your alternative breaks my 45-minute rule above (remember, 45 minutes door to door!).

Hope that helps. Sounds like a great adventure if you can get what you need comp and visa-wise.

<comment><AUTHOR> TKM, Thanks for the wonderful reply. I have now more options to consider than just NJ. Thanks once again.

<comment><USER27> Another thing to think about, if you're working for a Wall Street bank (and likely other firms, but I can't comment on what their policies are), is that past a certain time you get a car service home. Opens up the search a bit as well.</comment></comment></comment>


Hiring on Craigslist experiment with interesting results - <AUTHOR> http://karmabond.com/pages/hiring-on-craigslist-without-email-overload I built a site that should improve process of hiring on Craiglist. First test results look promising. I plan to pursue couple local HR agencies to give it a try and run couple more tests for other professions. Any other ideas on what is the most effective way to prove or disprove this concept quickly? <comment><USER2> He asked for a security deposit? Yeah, just a _little_ bit fishy. There's no way in hell I would apply for a job that wanted me to pay to apply. Totally bogus.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, IANAL but my guess this is pretty illegal in most states. If it wasn't you'd be seeing a lot more companies doing it.

<comment><USER4> If more companies did it, some unscrupulous users would abuse it by posting fake listings and not returning the money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Is it difficult to write a few words that show you have taken the time to > visit our website and understand the job description?

If they're finding you through an advertisement, that means that they didn't know or care who you were until they read the ad. At that point, yes, it's a bit hard. It's not hard because they need to regurgitate facts you gave them—that's the easy part. The hard part is being enthusiastic in the "I always wanted to work for you; I know exactly what you do, and I know that it's exactly what I want to do, even though I've never used any of your products or services" sense. It's too emotionally draining to write ten of those in a row.

<comment><USER6> Depends on the job. If you work at a general office position, why the hell should you care what hobbies the CEO has, or what your boss enjoys collecting, or the fact that your company deals in gold paper clips to rich industrialists.

For most jobs, this isn't important.

Never trust advice from recruiters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> If I was looking for a job and found a job ad with no contact information, I would see it possibly as spam/scam/non-serious recruiting activity unless I have had heard of the company (in that case I would be looking at their career section anyways).

<comment><USER8> I'd have to agree with you there. I also remember the last time I was out of work, any job listings without contact info was removed pretty quickly as spam. The job I did end up taking didn't list the company name, which actually kept me from applying for the job for two weeks. I did end up applying in the end (mostly because I wasn't seeing very many jobs that appealed to me, and the job description for this one did look good.) Prospective employees need to learn how to properly apply for jobs, but by the same token, employers need to learn how to properly post their job openings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I do a _lot_ of recruiting - either direct for clients (i.e. wearing a recruiter hat and filling their positions) or indirect for my consulting firm (i.e. people who will help us meet our client's needs). In doing so, I place a lot of ads on CL and personally read hundreds of resumes and notes each month. I read every CL mail myself. Before this, I spent 10+ years hiring at various BigCos and MedCos. So it's one person's opinion, but I do know what I'm talking about.

If you're applying for a position on CL (or, really, anywhere), it is _absolutely_ worth spending five minutes doing _something_ that shows that you've actually read something - the job description, the company's bio, their videos of their technology, something. I'm reading a lot of people arguing their way out of doing so below, and I'll tell you that I'm happy for your ability to argue but you will miss out on great things (and you can hardly ever know great things from a job description) by not spending five minutes. I don't care about a fancy or detailed cover letter, but if you just submit a generic sentence and a resume, you've done nothing to make an initial positive impression - which is why you're applying in the first place. This does not take a lot of work, it's just called being thoughtful.

You don't really know who's reading your submission - could be an HR person, could be the hiring mgr, could be the CEO - but every one of those people has a vested interest in finding somebody who gives a crap, and has limited time.

(And yes, the article is a waste of pixels.)

<comment><USER6> The problem with listening to advice from rectruiters, is every recruiter is different and has different advice. And what one is looking for, annoys the hell out of others. Some insist on mission statements, some hate them. And it was trendy to do a mission statement for a few years, and now it is not.

Some of them want only 2 pages, some of them want lots of details, with a capability matrix.

Some of them like personal touches like photos, some of them just want the meat and potatoes, and get annoyed at this crap.

Some of them get upset when you don't address them by name, some of them hide their name on the ad, and there is no way to get it.

Some of them like short cover letters, some of them want you to address every single point they bought up in the ad, sometimes stretching to 4 pages.

Some of them only want the last relevant jobs, some don't like seeing gaps anywhere, which leads them to suspect that you were in jail (WTF?).

This is why you can't take recruiters seriously, they constantly speak like they all agree, when they don't. They give out useless advice, that can actually disadvantage you if you deal with someone else.

<comment><USER8> I think this separation between what different recruiters want actually makes for an easy way for the applicant to filter out the companies whose culture doesn't fit their own. Make your cover letter and resume fit you, if it gets dropped because it isn't what the recruiter wants (too short, too long, etc.) then that company probably wouldn't have been a good fit anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Running it in different cities skews the results - would have been better to run multiple trials in the same city.

I'm also not sure that counting applicants as a proportion of the unemployed in a city makes sense. I'm not unemployed, but I am looking for a new job. I also technically don't live in the city/district I work in.

That's not to say that those techniques won't work as filters, but the percentages quoted are basically just made-up numbers.

</comment><comment><USER11> Isn't the whole "pay to apply" the business model of <http://localbacon.com>

Edit: seems that localbacon isn't what it used to be... <http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/22/jibe-localbacon-relaunch/>

<comment><USER12> I think their original idea was great and could definitely have grown into a viable business given time. Looks like the VCs didn't want to wait for that to happen and now they have to do all this social network bullshit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Maybe I've only ever lived in secondary markets, but in my experience, job listings on Craigslist aren't worth my time even to look at. None of the companies there impress me or make me want to contact them. Extrapolating from my experience, it would seem that in all but a few markets, Craigslist job ads are already scraping the bottom of the barrel, at least when it comes to technical talent.

<comment><USER14> In Seattle, craigslist is kinda the way to apply for jobs. I've found that 99% of the times I applied through the careers section of a company's website, I received no response. Applying through craigslist was the only way I ever got an interview over my 9 month long job hunt, and it was how I got my current job.

While I was at a job interview for one company, I was eavesdropping on the receptionist. Some people had decided to cold call the company to see if they could apply to any job openings. The receptionist calmly responded, that they weren't accepting any resumes at the moment, but any job openings would be posted on craigslist.

So yeah. While I imagine most cities are probably more bottom of the barrel stuff, in a select few cities craigslist is almost necessary for a job-seeker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I wonder how this experiment would have turned out if all the applicants decided to play the same game.

\- Submit their resume but with a name only. You have to Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, whatever to find the contact information.

or

\- The employer will only receive contact information if he puts in a $1 security deposit in the prospective employee's bank account.

<comment><USER16> There are thousands of applicants for every job. They aren't exactly in a position of power.

<comment><USER17> He did say _all the applicants_ , not just a handful of them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> You can be marked as spam/fraud 95 percent of the time by behaving exactly like a spammer/fraudster.

</comment><comment><USER19> This article was ridiculous. Maybe the people who would apply figured your job wasn't worth a $1 when they are unemployed?

</comment><comment><USER20> Note that the author of the blog post apparently works for karmabond, so I'd classify this almost as a devious advertisement for their escrow services, or whatever it is they do.

In any case, regarding the gist of the article, let me explain how job seeking works as a job seeker:

I send custom cover letters to each and every company that I apply to. This take at least an hour and often much longer per company: I read about the company, executive bios, executive bios on crunchbase, scan techcrunch articles, check glassdoor, google the company a bit, see what job I think I'd be interested in, etc. I then write a custom cover letter explaining my background as it pertains to their job and why I think I'd be a good fit for them.

When this works, it works well. On the other hand, I'd say 75 percent or more of phone screens _clearly_ couldn't be arsed to read my cover letter before getting on the phone with me. If it's too much bother to read one page of text about a candidate before getting on the phone with me, then I'm not interested. Sorry. On the other hand, when deciding between offers a couple years ago, the fact that the person on the phone had read my cover letter and thought about what I said helped tip the balance in favor of Scribd.

ps -- netflix recruiters? The reason I'm ignoring your calls now is when I sent you a well thought out cover letter 2 years ago, you couldn't even be bothered to email back. People remember.

So when Alex whines that applicants don't send custom cover letters, well, the reason is simple: too much work since the vast majority of employers don't bother to read them. He apparently doesn't understand that job seekers have finite time and job searching is a triage process -- where can I aply that I will like the most with the highest probability of succeeding. So yes, it is difficult to invest a couple hours per company and even if you do, in the majority of cases, you will never hear back. Not even a simple, "Thanks for applying, we received your application, but we don't think you're a good fit at this time" email.

As for sending $1 to some website I've never heard of, hah. Alex must be out of his mind to think people would do that.

<comment><USER21> _I'd say 75 percent or more of phone screens clearly couldn't be arsed to read my cover letter before getting on the phone with me._

100% of the time I've been asked to do a phone screen, I've been given a resume but no cover letter. You can't count on the cover letter getting past HR.

<comment><USER22> Agreed - I've done over 300 interviews / and probably north of 600 phone screens in the last six years - I'm struggling to recall if I've ever seen a cover letter, even once.

<comment><USER14> So the next question is... Does the cover letter even matter? Is the cover letter the reason I got past HR in the first place? Or did they just shred my letter, speed read my resume, and slap it up to you because I got enough buzz words in the resume? Or more probably somewhere in between?

<comment><USER21> I'll describe the situation as I believe it was at my company before we were acquired by MegaCorp. HR was in charge of processing applications but had no influence over which applications were considered. They enforced whatever absolute requirements the hiring manager specified for a particular position, but considering we have senior developers with no college coursework, much less college degrees, I bet our hiring managers were wise enough to specify very few absolute requirements. Our HR personnel knew nothing whatsoever about software development skills and were not expected to.

However, HR did _process_ the applications, and the result of that was that a manager with an open position would get a big stack of resumes on his desk every few days. The key word here being "resumes," rather than "applications." I never heard a manager say anything about reading cover letters, or saying things like "so-and-so's cover letter says he's interested in <blah>." When we met to discuss candidates, the only sources of information people mentioned were resume, phone screen, and interview.

So what's the point of the cover letter, you ask? I guess it varies. In my company, the cover letter was evidently only read (or more likely simply discarded) by HR, who had no input in hiring decisions. In a smaller organization, the hiring manager might see the entire application, including the cover letter, which the manager would most likely ignore. In a larger organization, ignorant HR folks might be making judgments about candidates' suitability for the job, and in that case the cover letter might mean a great deal, since the resume would be gibberish to them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > Is it difficult to write a few words that show you have taken the time to > visit our website and understand the job description?

As another commenter noted, yes, it's far too draining to research a company and manufacture a B.S. cover letter. Look, we're professionals here. I applied to your position because it looks like a good fit for my skills. I'm sorry that you have to dig through others who spammed you with unrelated email, but that's really not my problem. Do you want you corporate ego stroked, or do you want a qualified applicant who will make you money?

Regarding the $1, all I can say is, "wow." I wouldn't touch that _Craigslist_ posting with a ten foot pole. I would also immediately flag it as a scam. It reminds me an awful lot of the "job placement" companies I saw crop up back in the Tech Bubble Crash, who promised you access to thousands of jobs if you just pay their subscription fee. I really dislike companies which prey on the unemployed and desperate.

<comment><USER24> > As another commenter noted, yes, it's far too draining to research a company > and manufacture a B.S. cover letter. Look, we're professionals here. I > applied to your position because it looks like a good fit for my skills. I'm > sorry that you have to dig through others who spammed you with unrelated > email, but that's really not my problem. Do you want you corporate ego > stroked, or do you want a qualified applicant who will make you money?

Agree completely. As far as I'm concerned, unless you _really_ interest me, I should spend about as much time researching your company as you will reading my resume.

<comment><USER25> Then why send the resume at all? If you have little interest in the company, have no interest to spend 5 minutes writing a cover letter, and expect they'll only spend 10s looking at your resume, why bother sending it?

<comment><USER23> > Then why send the resume at all? If you have little interest in the company, > have no interest to spend 5 minutes writing a cover letter

Okay, I _really_ don't understand this line of thinking at all. I would genuinely like it if someone could possibly explain this.

As I said above, I'm a professional, you're a professional. I am offering to you my talent and wisdom which will earn you more than it costs you. You are offering to me money and (maybe) a pleasant working environment.

So we're entering into this on a level playing field. _Why_ am I expected to do a bunch of research and write up a customized cover letter, other than to satisfy your ego?

As far as I'm concerned, this is a courtship like any other. I say, "hey, here's my resume, what do you think?" You say, "hey, I like it, here's what we're like, what do you think?" and we go from there.

The whole, "we demand a cover letter that makes our nipples tingle," thing strikes me as ineffectual middle-management HR B.S. which probably keeps a lot of great people from ever getting interviewed.

<comment><USER25> Since you asked for me to explain it to you, I'll do so.

As someone who has hired many people I've learned that people with so little interest as to spend five minutes looking us up are typically generally lazy (even outside the context of our company) and specifically may be incompetent.

At the point of looking at resumes I have very little to go on. If the resume comes in with Kool Aid stains on it, and states that you'd like any job that pays, preferably working with hot chicks, I'm less inclined to spend much time with your resume. Everyone says they're a professional. Unless I'm desperate to hire someone, the burden of proof is on you. And the fact of the matter is if I'm getting 500 resumes, and 50 of them can point to having reverse engineered our object-model in high school, why does your resume asking "what is it that you guys do again?" merit a second look.

Maybe in a world where you're especially in demand, what you suggest is fine. If I get Sergey Brin or David Cutler's resume on my desk, I'll call them and let them know what we do. But if you're random dev -- well you need to prove you're not JUST a random dev.

And this really is relative. If you're applying for the most coveted dev role in the world, you need to show more in the resume than if you're applying to fix bugs in the Waste Management LOB app written in COBOL from 1979.

<comment><USER23> I'm going to maintain that employers should look beyond a cover letter and see if the applicant's past experience indicates that they're actually relevant to the role.

> 50 of them can point to having reverse engineered our object-model in high > school, why does your resume asking "what is it that you guys do again?" > merit a second look.

That's an unfair comparison. One indicates, presumably, direct technical experience with your product.

Between engineer A, who has X years of relevant experience and no cover letter, versus engineer B who has Y years of irrelevant experience, but an _awesome_ cover letter, who are you going to choose?

> But if you're random dev -- well you need to prove you're not JUST a random > dev.

That's precisely what my _resume_ does. A flattering cover letter only serves to demonstrate my B.S. skills.

Now, I'll admit that I can certainly write a cover letter which is _technically relevant_. I will highlight my skills in particular areas named by the job listing.

However, it's been my experience that HR looks for utter bullshit on the resume, and manager types want to hear how awesome their company is. The funny thing is, I haven't heard of _most_ tech companies, and _most_ tech companies have pretty bland websites which are just marketing tools and don't tell me anything relevant to working at a company as a software engineer.

I dunno, I'm wildly jaded by both sides. I openly admit that I have a bug up my ass about H.R. because I've had too many problems with them on both sides: trying to weed me out for B.S. reasons (e.g. "would you say computers are more of a job, or a hobby?"), and preventing me from interviewing qualified candidates, while sending me godawful douchebags who can't even write a for loop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "I decided to create a fake job listing..."

He, in turn, wasted serious applicants' time who took time to write good cover letters to reply to his fake job listing. I guess, researcher's dilemma.

<comment><USER27> yeah, this is not cool IMHO.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Watch what files any Linux process accesses - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/spieglt/whatfiles <comment><USER2> Not taking anything away from the worth of this tool but if you do happen to find yourself needing to quickly inspect which files a process has open you can do so using the /proc file system:

        ls -l /proc/$PID/fd/

Additionally you can also use the /proc file system to display where the cursor is in those files by outputting the contents of

        /proc/$PID/fdinfo/$FD

which is handy if you have a long running process but forgot to pipe it into `pv` (or any other long running ingest that lacks a progress UI)

(Both tricks are Linux only)

<comment><USER3> Pv supports this directly with -d pid, [http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/bionic/man1/pv.1.html](http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/bionic/man1/pv.1.html)

<comment><USER2> I learn something new every day. Thank you

<comment><USER3> Yea it's really nice for making a progress bar for things like cp, mv, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> biotop and biolatency surface similar info. they come with a ton of other ridiculously awesome tools in BCC tools. they are a set of python wrapper scripts that run eBPF programs. using eBPF generally has a really low impact on performance when compared with other tools that do similar work.

[https://github.com/iovisor/bcc](https://github.com/iovisor/bcc)

<comment><USER5> bcc also has opensnoop, which is really nice for seeing which files are being opened:

[https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/blob/master/tools/opensnoop_e...](https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/blob/master/tools/opensnoop_example.txt)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> How is this different from using something like,

`strace -e trace=file`

I see that you are using ptrace to monitor a process. That is also used by strace. Is there something else your application does that strace does not (In relation to files)?

<comment><USER7> From the README:

> Isn't this just a reimplementation of strace -fe > trace=creat,open,openat,unlink,unlinkat ./program?

> Yes. Though it aims to be simpler and more user friendly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> For macOS, fs_usage does the same job. I find it invaluable to find out what process is churning the disk (usually mds...).

</comment><comment><USER9> Just a heads up ( _read: shameless plug_ ), there's an AUR package:

[https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/whatfiles- git/](https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/whatfiles-git/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, thank you very much! I've thought about trying to get a few of my projects into distribution repos but was somewhat intimidated by the process.

<comment><USER9> You're welcome - but please check out #1/#2 so i can remove that ugly patch ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh cool, was that you also? I will after work today.

<comment><USER9> nope, someone else. I just stumbled over it and it's currently part of the package. Thanks for your effort ^^

<comment><AUTHOR> Patch merged.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> For doing the opposite - what processes access a given file - I like to use Audit ([https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Audit_framework#Audit_f...](https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Audit_framework#Audit_files_and_directories_access)).

</comment><comment><USER11> This looks very similar to _fatrace_ , which is already in the standard ubuntu and fedora repos.

 _edit: fatrace is system-wide, whereas the current tools monitors a specific process_

[http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/trusty/man1/fatrace.1.ht...](http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/trusty/man1/fatrace.1.html)

[https://piware.de/2012/02/fatrace-report-system-wide-file- ac...](https://piware.de/2012/02/fatrace-report-system-wide-file-access- events/)

</comment><comment><USER12> Lots more such tools at [https://jvns.ca/debugging- zine.pdf](https://jvns.ca/debugging-zine.pdf) (opensnoop-bpfcc and strace would be the most like this one)

</comment><comment><USER13> BTW, if you are using strace for this, check out the -y option recently added to strace. It will print the filename next to each file descriptor like this:

         read(3</proc/filesystems>, "", 1024)    = 0

Another interesting new strace option is -k which does a stack dump after each syscall. this can be useful to find out what part of the application, like some obscure lib, does weird system calls in your app.

</comment><comment><USER14> IMO ProcMon on Windows is its equivalent. Not Process Explorer.

<comment><USER15> There was news 2 years ago that MS was porting the sysinternals tool to linux. Did that ever happen?

[https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-working-on-sysinternals- fo...](https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-working-on-sysinternals-for-linux/)

<comment><USER16> Azure Insights provides similar kind of information.

Maybe that is where the porting effort went.

<comment><USER15> Could well be. If I recall correctly the motivation behind the porting was to give their engineers a unified set of tooling for troubleshooting windows and Linux (on Azure). I just assumed that the porting efforts would result in a similar set of tools to use locally on the box.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Any reason why this is better than audit? I read README but i'm still not clear.

<comment><USER18> Auditd is system wide (as would be inotify or fanotify based solutions).

This traces file events of a single process. Strace can be coaxed into something similar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Can it be invoked recursively?

Because strace on Linux still fails with:

        strace: ptrace(PTRACE_TRACEME, ...): Operation not permitted

in those cases :(

<comment><AUTHOR> I have strace'd whatfiles, in fact that was a very useful way to debug a couple things, so maybe? I have not been able to attach to the same process with both whatfiles and strace, however.</comment></comment>


Beware before Ordering Ringing Bells Smart 101 or Freedom 251 Smart Phone - <AUTHOR> http://phoneradar.com/beware-ringing-bells-freedom-251-smartphone/ <comment><AUTHOR> Update: Although $4 phone is a scam, I cannot fathom how come Indian defense minister is endorsing it. I hope this will not be charged to poor Indian tax payers,like Akash which was subsidized and subsequently failed. Moreover company is a fraud, how can anyone from government associate with it. It is using name of Modi and Make in India. Even the most basic computer without any WiFi or radio like Raspberry Pi Zero cost $5, so this is not just improbable, but impossible unless some billionaire wants to do a social service. [http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report-the- freedom-251-fiasc...](http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report-the- freedom-251-fiasco-what-the-hell-is-going-on-2178927)

<comment><USER2> corruption, its India

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Why does this site want to send me push notifications? More specifically, why is it showing me a fake, vibrating, AdBlock-evading, interface element "powered by LetReach" asking to send me push notifications?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry about the ad, I use ad-blocker in firefox so didn't notice it, otherwise won't have included this link.

<comment><USER4> I too am using ABP with firefox, yet I can see the "LetsReach" annoying notifications :( Which ad-blocker are you using ?

<comment><AUTHOR> I have unchecked allow some non-intrusive advertisement. Also I selectively allow javascript and only from the same domain so this website only loads text. Probably if I enable JS it might come as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I thought we already knew this wasn't on the up and up.

Even the most minimal SoC, powerful enough to run Android (I think I read it was shipping with Android) is at least $30, a single core wtf-wonder.

<comment><USER6> Where are you getting your $30 price point? Digikey single unit pricing?

At a Shenzhen electronic parts market I have seen dual cores from Mediatek and Allwinner for $10-15/unit in low volume and this was several years ago. If you have leverage during pricing negotiations you can get extremely low pricing for chips that is an order of magnitude cheaper than any online list price you can find.

That said, I'm skeptical that a $5 phone can be manufactured profitably with a quad core chip without a lot of subsidies either from the manufacturer or the gov't.

<comment><USER5> I actually haven't looked at pricing for awhile.

Yeah, I should be able to get quad core absolutely garbage SoCs for $5-10 now in sufficient volume.

Still, the LTE modem assembly is going to be a lot more than that.

If they had said maybe a $25 phone? And they were making several million of them? I'd believe it.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What kind of closed-source Linux software would you be willing to buy? - <AUTHOR> I always assumed there was no market for closed source Linux software, but this comment made me think otherwise:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17594779
So, is there a market? Does anyone know of people that would buy such software? What kind of software? <comment><USER2> Image editor that's close-ish to Photoshop.

Really good RAW-converter/image library, especially if it's cross-platform. The open-source solutions aren't really bad, but a good one would be worth money.

IDEs and various dev tools potentially.

</comment><comment><USER3> There's definitely a market. I don't know how many times I've heard people say they would switch to Linux but can't because of some critical app they need. The 3 I hear about most often are games, MS Office and Adobe software, usually Creative Suite and/or Acrobat Pro. I think there would be a market for engineering and design software too. AutoCAD, Matlab, etc.

<comment><USER4> There's WPS Office to replace most uses of MS Office.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I pay for [https://www.insynchq.com](https://www.insynchq.com) because I became tired of all the tools that just couldn't sync with Google drive.

<comment><USER6> Thanks for the shoutout! :) We're always happy to help out the Linux community.

-Greg from Insync</comment></comment>