Hacker News Reader

> I'm South Indian, I didn't grow up there, but I can vouch for the condescending tone of Snigdha (the author of this piece). It's very much like how a condescending North Indian talks about a South Indian. And she's the 'educated' North Indian here talking to an 'un-educated' one. The condescension is palpable, and present throughout the piece. I have not read her other 2 pieces, but they're on similar topics, and I expect a similar tone. I'm not sure if it is a reflection of her distaste for the people in these highly questionable occupations, or just sprinkles of editorial hate.

Maybe I just didn't pick up on it, but as someone who doesn't know anything about the background of the author (nor about Indian stereotypes) this article didn't seem condescending to me at all. Are you sure you're not just projecting your own stereotypes about North/South Indians onto the author here?

I'm South Indian as well, and I didn't pick up on any condescension. If anything, the writer went out of her way to present the views of obvious scammers as fairly as she could.

Same here. I actually didn't understand why OP mentioned South India at all.

My point was about the perceived superiority that some people have over the others, due to their geographical/cultural/religious biases.

I mentioned I was South Indian to emphasise my bias towards such a tone.

But as I have acknowledged in my above comments, I may have looked at the article through biased eyes, but I still think I'm right in my assumption about this author's tone.

That may very well be the case.

I did try to go through the paragraphs again to see if I could get a better read on it, unfortunately I came out with the same conclusion.

the British choose to chew their crap food

What, you don't like curry? :)

(cue "no true Scotsman" vis-a-vis UK curry!)

hah yes the infamous curry was most of my diet throughout my life in uni. That and pot noodles might be the leading cause of my future diabetic pancreas.

Well making curry your self does reduce the industrial amount of salt and MSG that a BIR pts in its food - apologies to the more authentic ones that are closer to real Indian Cuisine.

> I've heard many arguments about how its a cultural thing, old people in the west (more weighted towards N-America) are treated as a burden. A burden on the economy, a social burden (damn those annoying grandpa's and grandma's). Isn't that why the 401k and MediCare/MedicAid exist? (excluding the set of population that doesn't qualify for them) to pay them(selves) back for their 40+ years of service? I'd like to hear some fresh arguments/data on why they are treated as such. I'd be grateful to anyone who points me to more reading material on this topic.

Usual disclaimer: This is my opinion, yada yada yada. I am probably wrong on some (if not most) of this.

The elderly, especially in America, have an incredible amount of sway over national politics. Nearly 1/2 of voters are 50 or older [1]. As such, they generate a lot of ire in the US among the less-elderly because it feels like their needs are often met at the expense of the nation.

Medicare, for example, represents a huge amount of US entitlement spending [2] - though this is somewhat of a misleading number because Medicare funds quite a few things besides strictly healthcare expenses (like it funds most physician residencies, IIRC). Coming out in opposition to Medicare is often viewed as a bit of a political death sentence, because your primary goal as a politician is (at least it feels this way sometimes) to pander to older voters.

Additionally, steadfast conservatives tend to be elderly [3], which often puts the elderly in opposition to younger generations. Since politicians tend to listen primarily to their actual voters, you can sort-of understand the young liberal's decree that "things will be better when all the old people die."

Now, none of this is really the elderly's fault (aside from maybe that last part). Medicare is a reaction to an out-of-control healthcare system, and that's not necessarily your grandma's fault. If politicians listen to the people who vote for them, the logical answer would seem to be "go out and vote", not "get angry at the people who do vote."

But, if you're someone who does vote but feels like your voice still isn't being heard, you can probably start to understand some of the animosity.

1: http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nation/2011/05/04/U-S-votin...

2: https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/sta...

3: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics...

> Isn't that why the 401k and MediCare/MedicAid exist?

Well, that doesn't provide you with emotional support and caring, just material goods.

Even if all your needs are provided for, if you're all alone in that nobody wants to speak to you or see you except one or twice a year, you're still alone and isolated.

In addition, 401k is a plan you pay into, and you get taxed one way or another. Some employers match, but besides for that, you're on your own.

And as pension schemes goes it not very generous in the UK you get a minimum of 20% tax relief even more if your a higher rate tax payer.