6 ms·

I live in the country remote working like some of the other commenters here after being priced out of NYC (where I'm from) and the Bay Area (where I worked for

I live in the country remote working like some of the other commenters here after being priced out of NYC (where I'm from) and the Bay Area (where I worked for a few years). That I have great internet and wonderful amenities are two key pieces. However after having run small businesses and/or freelancing for 10 years I can say that it is not something that everyone is cut out for. The problem the cities have now is that they are not priced for people who work for a living. They are priced for people with access to intergenerational wealth and/or who don't work and just live off investments. Everything from the cost of property to the tax structure penalizes people who work severely and rewards people who own property and live off capital gains lavishly. Everything in the laws screams out "YOU SHOULD NOT BE WORKING HERE/EARNING A SALARY/STARTING A SMALL BUSINESS -- MOVE OUT, PEASANT." People included in the "PEASANT" category include people earning low to mid six figure salaries. There is only so much that people will tolerate working hard to make their landlord rich. Other cities in the country that aren't the big offenders that everyone complains about don't really have this problem. It is a problem that there is a solution for, though: move out, buy property, save money, work less, enjoy life more, get to keep the stuff that you used to give up to your landlord for the privilege of a few square feet in a dirty, stinky city with infrastructure that would humiliate someone from a country that isn't as backwards as the US.

electricEmu 9y ago
Alternatively, you save for years. My SO and I have lived in a smaller apartment for years to save a house down + backup. We have no inherited wealth; we came from a rural background. We could own in the countryside or suburbs. Both have shitty commutes, limit opportunity, and come with worse arrangements. Sticker price is lower, but TCO is higher outside the city. I'll take opportunity in the city; where I don't have to drive an hour.
mistermann 9y ago
Totally agree, and Canada is worse - we have very few major cities to choose from, and the two major ones (Vancouver and Toronto) are insanely expensive to live in on an affordability basis, due to the terrible wages Canadians enjoy compared to the US. And worse, our already large but planned to increase annually immigration levels, much of which are wives and children of the world's 1%, who also coincidentally choose to live in the two cities above, essentially guarantees that working class people (by that I mean anyone that actually works for a living) will be eventually pushed out, unless some sort of a public dorm system is introduced.
- j-c-hewitt 9y ago
  Right... and the conventional 'working class' as in service workers, some factory workers, and the like have to live stacked up in probably-illegal conditions while the white collar 'working class' lives in tiny apartments paying as much in rent for a 1 bedroom as a guy with a lavish multi-hundred-acre horse farm estate with 8 bedrooms pays for his mortgage in the country.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    And the cream on top: the white collar worker living in a shoebox is paying 40% income taxes while the estate owner has no taxable income, despite buying a few new $100k+ cars per year. And the government "doesn't see" any of this happening.
    - toasterlovin 9y ago
      To be fair, the accumulated wealth of the rich person has already been taxed.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        The accumulation of wealth (income) has been, the accumulated wealth (property) has not (except insofar as they wealth is held in asset classes subject to property taxes.) Whether income alone, property alone, or some (and if so, what) particular combination of those two should be taxed is a matter of some debate.
        toasterlovin 9y ago
        You have to buy assets. The income used to buy them has already been taxed. Then, whenever those assets generate further income, that additional income gets taxed. You can quibble about what the tax rates should be, but I was responding to somebody who made it sound like wealthy people pay no taxes, which is an utter misrepresentation of the situation.
refurb 9y ago
San Francisco median income is $78,000 according to Wikipedia. That means 50% of households earn less than that. Those people seem to be able to live in SF, why do you assume it's "priced for people with access to intergenerational wealth and/or who don't work and just live off investments". That's likely a fraction of all the people who live there.
- pascalxus 9y ago
  Well, you have to either be one of the lucky 20% who get housing for free from affordability lotteries, OR you have to be a member of the feudal lords who own property in SF. The rest are probably holding on to their rent controlled properties like they're a gold mine. But, if your new to city and want to come there, anything less than 120K (300K+ if you have a family of 4) isn't going to make it.
  - djrogers 9y ago
    > if your new to city and want to come there, anything less than 120K (300K+ if you have a family of 4) isn't going to make it. Not everyone earning $120k+ are "people with access to intergenerational wealth and/or who don't work and just live off investments". In fact I'd venture to say that most aren't.
    - j-c-hewitt 9y ago
      Heck I even lived in the Bay Area on less than that and did OK as a single person. But I have been a lot more successful financially in a region with a much lower cost of living. Your mileage may vary, but I bet on an alternative strategy that has been working for me. I believe that many people are discovering that the strategy of working in a high COLA region expecting an extreme payoff is not as reliable a strategy as it was for our parents' generation -- in part because our parents' generation was able to afford to buy property at reasonable prices and then benefit from the appreciation.
BrandonMarc 9y ago
> Other cities in the country that aren't the big offenders that everyone complains about don't really have this problem. True story. While the above is true for NYC, LA, Bay Area ... it's simply not true for Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio.

electricEmu 9y ago

Alternatively, you save for years. My SO and I have lived in a smaller apartment for years to save a house down + backup. We have no inherited wealth; we came from a rural background. We could own in the countryside or suburbs. Both have shitty commutes, limit opportunity, and come with worse arrangements. Sticker price is lower, but TCO is higher outside the city. I'll take opportunity in the city; where I don't have to drive an hour.

mistermann 9y ago

Totally agree, and Canada is worse - we have very few major cities to choose from, and the two major ones (Vancouver and Toronto) are insanely expensive to live in on an affordability basis, due to the terrible wages Canadians enjoy compared to the US. And worse, our already large but planned to increase annually immigration levels, much of which are wives and children of the world's 1%, who also coincidentally choose to live in the two cities above, essentially guarantees that working class people (by that I mean anyone that actually works for a living) will be eventually pushed out, unless some sort of a public dorm system is introduced.

j-c-hewitt 9y ago
Right... and the conventional 'working class' as in service workers, some factory workers, and the like have to live stacked up in probably-illegal conditions while the white collar 'working class' lives in tiny apartments paying as much in rent for a 1 bedroom as a guy with a lavish multi-hundred-acre horse farm estate with 8 bedrooms pays for his mortgage in the country.
- mistermann 9y ago
  And the cream on top: the white collar worker living in a shoebox is paying 40% income taxes while the estate owner has no taxable income, despite buying a few new $100k+ cars per year. And the government "doesn't see" any of this happening.
  - toasterlovin 9y ago
    To be fair, the accumulated wealth of the rich person has already been taxed.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      The accumulation of wealth (income) has been, the accumulated wealth (property) has not (except insofar as they wealth is held in asset classes subject to property taxes.) Whether income alone, property alone, or some (and if so, what) particular combination of those two should be taxed is a matter of some debate.
      - toasterlovin 9y ago
        You have to buy assets. The income used to buy them has already been taxed. Then, whenever those assets generate further income, that additional income gets taxed. You can quibble about what the tax rates should be, but I was responding to somebody who made it sound like wealthy people pay no taxes, which is an utter misrepresentation of the situation.

refurb 9y ago

San Francisco median income is $78,000 according to Wikipedia. That means 50% of households earn less than that. Those people seem to be able to live in SF, why do you assume it's "priced for people with access to intergenerational wealth and/or who don't work and just live off investments". That's likely a fraction of all the people who live there.

pascalxus 9y ago
Well, you have to either be one of the lucky 20% who get housing for free from affordability lotteries, OR you have to be a member of the feudal lords who own property in SF. The rest are probably holding on to their rent controlled properties like they're a gold mine. But, if your new to city and want to come there, anything less than 120K (300K+ if you have a family of 4) isn't going to make it.
- djrogers 9y ago
  > if your new to city and want to come there, anything less than 120K (300K+ if you have a family of 4) isn't going to make it. Not everyone earning $120k+ are "people with access to intergenerational wealth and/or who don't work and just live off investments". In fact I'd venture to say that most aren't.
  - j-c-hewitt 9y ago
    Heck I even lived in the Bay Area on less than that and did OK as a single person. But I have been a lot more successful financially in a region with a much lower cost of living. Your mileage may vary, but I bet on an alternative strategy that has been working for me. I believe that many people are discovering that the strategy of working in a high COLA region expecting an extreme payoff is not as reliable a strategy as it was for our parents' generation -- in part because our parents' generation was able to afford to buy property at reasonable prices and then benefit from the appreciation.

BrandonMarc 9y ago

> Other cities in the country that aren't the big offenders that everyone complains about don't really have this problem. True story. While the above is true for NYC, LA, Bay Area ... it's simply not true for Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio.