5 ms·

There are a zillion reasons to live in high cost areas aside from job liquidity. The magic of concentrations of people is that the advantages scale faster than

There are a zillion reasons to live in high cost areas aside from job liquidity. The magic of concentrations of people is that the advantages scale faster than population growth because of the network effect. Which, separately, is why cities are awesome and population density is a good thing for the planet and most people, even if it upsets some people that they can't have a big yard.

StavrosK 9y ago
That's my point: Getting paid less on top of not having those advantages isn't appealing to me. However, your argument is not valid: Large size doesn't imply high cost. Neither Shanghai (most populous city) nor Manila (most dense city) have higher costs of living than SF.
- ci5er 9y ago
  > Manila (most dense city) This comment doesn't take away from your point - but isn't densest either Dhaka or Mumbai?
  - StavrosK 9y ago
    Apparently not, Manila is considerably more dense than both, at least unless I'm reading the table wrong: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_density https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population...
    - ci5er 9y ago
      Woah! If that is true... wait. I see that they've shrunk the square-mile definition of "Manila" proper in this table. That makes sense. Thank you for the reference. You know - it's funny. Paris rates above Hong Kong (which does not even appear in the table), and Paris never felt (to me) as dense as HK. Even Manila never felt (to me, subjectively) as dense as HK.
hueving 9y ago
I think you might be blinded by your love for high density. Traffic, long commutes, higher crime, higher rent compared to the average salary (adults need roommates), long lines for anything decent, crappy parking or crappy public transit... These are all reasons that almost every large city in the US sucks. Smaller cities like Boulder, Fort Collins, etc offer a decent amount of variety while eliminating the majority of the problems with the large cities. Career is about the only thing a big city can be critical for and you have to be in the right city for your field.
- moxious 9y ago
  It doesn't have to be a huge city. I'm in a midsize city not in the Bay area, and I agree with everything you're saying about places like Boulder. I wrote this to contrast any size city with places like the endless suburbs or rural areas, not to create a hierarchy of "biggest is best". Problems do also scale with size, so it's not like the massive benefits of cities are tradeoff-free. For as great as San Francisco is purported to be, they have a huge homeless problem that they seem to do relatively little about.

StavrosK 9y ago

That's my point: Getting paid less on top of not having those advantages isn't appealing to me. However, your argument is not valid: Large size doesn't imply high cost. Neither Shanghai (most populous city) nor Manila (most dense city) have higher costs of living than SF.

ci5er 9y ago
> Manila (most dense city) This comment doesn't take away from your point - but isn't densest either Dhaka or Mumbai?
- StavrosK 9y ago
  Apparently not, Manila is considerably more dense than both, at least unless I'm reading the table wrong: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_density https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population...
  - ci5er 9y ago
    Woah! If that is true... wait. I see that they've shrunk the square-mile definition of "Manila" proper in this table. That makes sense. Thank you for the reference. You know - it's funny. Paris rates above Hong Kong (which does not even appear in the table), and Paris never felt (to me) as dense as HK. Even Manila never felt (to me, subjectively) as dense as HK.

hueving 9y ago

I think you might be blinded by your love for high density. Traffic, long commutes, higher crime, higher rent compared to the average salary (adults need roommates), long lines for anything decent, crappy parking or crappy public transit... These are all reasons that almost every large city in the US sucks. Smaller cities like Boulder, Fort Collins, etc offer a decent amount of variety while eliminating the majority of the problems with the large cities. Career is about the only thing a big city can be critical for and you have to be in the right city for your field.

moxious 9y ago
It doesn't have to be a huge city. I'm in a midsize city not in the Bay area, and I agree with everything you're saying about places like Boulder. I wrote this to contrast any size city with places like the endless suburbs or rural areas, not to create a hierarchy of "biggest is best". Problems do also scale with size, so it's not like the massive benefits of cities are tradeoff-free. For as great as San Francisco is purported to be, they have a huge homeless problem that they seem to do relatively little about.