dashboardfront

I'm from the US. I've signed up for kollegiums and I'm waiting on the list. It's taking a while as all the first year students have priority first, but that's wearing off soon. Hopefully that'll come through soon, but it's going to pose another challenge as I'll be going on exchange in half a year.

> I once proposed to someone that the best way to prevent whales being killed was to kill them all. It's surely true, they can't be hunted if they're never even born. But his response was "you have no morals". Actually conservationism is an activity without morals.

Okay... But I'm pretty sure a conservationists goal is not to make species go extinct.

There is a long run goal which is the survival of as many species and habitats as possible. Being nice animals is not diametrically opposed with being a conversationist, nor would a conversationist actually argue for killing all whales unless it had greater benefits for ocean ecosystems as a whole. You're ignoring the long-term consequences and only focusing on the actions themselves in calculating moral utility.

Same housing problems in Copenhagen. I'm a student who just lives back in my home country and flies over to Copenhagen for exams because I couldn't find housing. If I want to get something, I have to be there so I can hunt down people in person. There's really no sort of easy way to just get an apartment room, and I've found that willing to pay more doesn't really help (though maybe if you're willing to rent out something for 3-4k USD a month + drop 12,000 on a deposit you might have better luck).

I like how there are commenters who feel entitled to a PC version.

> 5) Where can you derive meaning and satisfaction from a job in quantitative finance? How do you reconcile the opportunity cost to society from not working on directly socially beneficial applications in fields like medicine and artificial intelligence?

If this is a strong concern of yours you should probably go with one of the other two options. There's opportunities to make money in many industries. You might not end up with as high as a net worth as you would've if you went into quantitative finance, but that's not an absolute rule and you'll more likely burn out if you don't find satisfaction in your job. This isn't a dig towards anyone that is in the finance industry and enjoys their job, but it's common for people to end up quitting from dissatisfaction/work conditions.

Besides that, a robotics startup sounds pretty exciting.

The idea of a consumption bundle is a microeconomic theory that has a lot of evidence behind it and is generally accepted in the community. It's not really my idea.

There is no certain minimum size that you need; you simply place a lot of utility of living space as opposed to other goods up to a certain point, at which diminishing returns kick in. The amount of utility you place clearly increases as you have more family members to take care of. In the case of an intern, this is generally not an issue.

There are also other purchases besides food and transportation that do not increase; the cost of travel and vacationing, for instance. Technology generally remains the same cost throughout the US. Clothing, I'd imagine, doesn't increase too much.

> I was mainly replying to your assertion that it isn't 2-3X more expensive to live in the Bay Area than the Midwest. I'm sorry to tell you that it is.

It can be. It depends on the utility you place on sq ft as opposed to all other goods. However, it is not an axiom that one needs 3x the money to live in the Bay in order to remain at the same indifference curve level as they previously did in the Midwest.

> Your living area is probably No.1 contributor to quality of life.

That might be true for you. Everyone has different indifference curves determined by the utility they place on different goods.

As for sq. feet minimums, at lower levels of sq ft. you will place higher utility on marginal sq. feet, sure, and diminishing returns will probably not have kicked in.

Yes, but using the same basket of goods is fundamentally flawed because people shift their consumption choices dependent on relative prices. People do not pick the same consumption bundles wherever they go. Your substitution to an inferior good (actually, just less consumption of a normal good, housing space) is compensated with a larger consumption of 'other goods', which have also rose in price but not nearly to the extent your salary went up (tripled, in his previous example). Again, income effect vs substitution effect.

Housing might very well be 2-3x (or more) expensive, but not all goods have gone up 2-3x more. This allows for an adjustment of your consumption bundle; your housing is not going to be as large, but you might have access to a greater amount of other goods. Of course, you can choose to easily make it 2-3x more expensive if you desire. Family makes this difficult because your personal indifference curve places higher utility towards space, but the parent was discussing intern salaries, who generally don't have to support families.

That's not what I was saying at all, but alright. If you're interested in the topic, look up utility curves, income effect, and substitution effect in a microeconomics textbook. It'll probably have a much better explanation than I can communicate through text (unless I start making graphs, which would be a bit time consuming).

Here's a copy paste of my explanation on reddit though (where this topic also constantly comes up):

Living in the Bay Area results in a higher wage, which increases consumption (income effect), but at the same time the price of housing is much higher as well (to a greater degree than the increase in income). You substitute sq ft with other goods. If you place relatively heavy utility on housing by sq ft in comparison to all other goods, then I guess it's a bad idea to come out here, because you're going to be on a lower indifference curve. Otherwise (and I think most people fall under 'otherwise', which is why they come out here ) its not that bad of an idea, and you'll probably end up on a higher indifference curve.

You can always adjust your consumption bundle. If I'm living in a high rent city, I'm more likely to find a friend to share an apartment with or settle for something not that great. This is a drop in utility (though I'd argue living with a friend is a positive for myself), but I also have a lot more money to use on other things, which increases my utility. Spending most of your money on rent when you're pulling something like 5,000 after tax a month is a choice, not a given, and is reflective on how much utility you perceive a better apartment to give you. In reality, we're probably terrible at accurately estimating utility of a good, but I personally have lived in a variety of places, and I was most happiest living in my tiny dorm room, so I personally don't care much about having a big place.

> When you're "making 90k" in the valley you have the quality of life worth 30k in a midwestern city.

Not true at all, yet this is constantly repeated like it's fact.

Look up indifference curves and consumption bundles. You're ignoring microeconomics. For anyone that doesn't assign excessively high utility towards housing size, 90k in the valley is a much better quality of life than 30k in a midwestern city.

This is where cost of living calculators fail as well. You can't compare the same basket of goods everywhere you go. People will adjust their basket of goods depending on relative prices; it doesn't mean that their utility has dropped. It's income effect vs substitution effect.

Edit: The number above has been changed to 60k~. I'd say this is probably a more reasonable argument. As for the suburban argument, I don't really know the numbers and I can't argue there. As a person in my 20s who grew up in San Jose, the suburbs are like a bad dream that continuously haunts me.

Why? Hypothetically, would I not have a better impact if I used the same time to take up extra work and instead donated that money? I would imagine the price per hour to hire labor for, say, a food drive could easily be funded multiple times through the price per hour to hire a software developer. Would I not make even more an impact if I chose to donate to an organization that operates in low-income countries? And why would locally matter? Are people in need not people in need regardless of where they're located?

What has our immense military budget exactly achieved? It hasn't defeated ISIS, brought peace to Syria, stopped Putin's aggressive expansionism, or ended North Korea's nuclear testings. Maybe Western Europe isn't interested in the bargain to begin with. From what is the US defending itself against with excessive military spending when we already have nuclear weapons that function as an effective deterrent? It doesn't seem like our military budget is preventing worldwide crises and nuclear development in rogue countries.

States in the US =/= Countries within the EU. Europe is really not a cohesive entity. Different languages, different history (stretching back a thousand+ years), completely different value systems, cultures, etc.

Trying to insinuate that the degree of differentiation between states is the same as between Europe countries is utter absurdity. Clearly, trying to track healthcare across different governments with different languages and different cultures is much harder than trying to track healthcare across different states with the same language, the same national government, and a very similar culture.