7 ms·

>We could have moved to the suburbs, but we really hate car culture and wanted to live in a biking city. Oh, so it is totally possible. But not if you want to

>We could have moved to the suburbs, but we really hate car culture and wanted to live in a biking city. Oh, so it is totally possible. But not if you want to live in a big city. K.

chrisabrams 8y ago
There are plenty of cities in the US where this is possible but they may not be as desireable. Europe has a couple thousand years advantage on the US in offering cities vs suburbs.
vostok 8y ago
I feel like every statement of that form has an implied "with the lifestyle that I want". If you remove that constraint then it's always possible for a software engineer because they make more than average and that average person does live somehow.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  Yep. Invoking Reductio Ad Absurdum, there's always a place for us in the ghetto too, the only question is do we want to live there?
  - jklinger410 8y ago
    The word can't is used in the title.
  - nsxwolf 8y ago
    Suburbs are perfectly reasonable places to live. You just have to get over yourself a little bit and buy a car.
    - vostok 8y ago
      I know you're responding to a different comment, but I want to clarify that I am not claiming that suburbs are unreasonable places to live. OP said that they didn't want to live in a suburb, which is a reasonable view to have. I don't want to live in one either.
    - gascan 8y ago
      Right, so instead of simply moving to the place where they can have the lifestyle they want, they should suck it up and buy a car like good Americans.
      - rootusrootus 8y ago
        I think he/she was responding to the post that compared suburbs to ghettos. That's no more useful than me saying the same thing about living in a big city. Suburbs and city can both have perfectly good quality-of-life, regardless of preference, neither is a ghetto.
    - francisofascii 8y ago
      That doesn't make much sense. A bike oriented life should be the more affordable, more attainable lifestyle than the car lifestyle.
      - CompelTechnic 8y ago
        High rents in a bikeable city center can wipe out the savings you get from not owning a car. My car-related expenses per month for two commuting drivers are $100 insurance, $150 in gas, and maybe $100 depreciation and maintenance. My cars are old and are not a fashion statement by any means. I would have to pay much more than $350 to get the same amount of house near city center. I would also sacrifice the ability to conveniently go long distances.
        francisofascii 8y ago
        I guess that is my point. How backwards is it that living without a car in a small apartment is MORE expensive than living with multiple cars in a large house.
        closeparen 8y ago
        Not at all. Cars are technology; land is land. Our society is highly optimized to promote the availability of ever-cheaper, ever-better technology, and also to make sure that real estate assets continuously appreciate.
      - closeparen 8y ago
        We should certainly expect a lifestyle based around consumer goods mass-produced under mature and technologically advanced industrial capitalism to be cheaper (and get cheaper over time) relative to a lifestyle based on around living on the most central, premium land.
- stephengillie 8y ago
  > I feel like every statement of that form has an implied "with the lifestyle that I want". The perspective confuses me - isn't "having kids" the lifestyle that they want? If that is the priority, then other aspects of life must be flexible to accommodate.
  - vostok 8y ago
    I guess I thought that their preferences were * Have space for two children, presumably with separate bedrooms. Potentially even more than one bathroom in the apartment. * Live in a nice, urban area. * Bike 15 minutes to work. They are able to afford this in Berlin, but probably would't be able to do the same in the US.
    - fhood 8y ago
      I am genuinely surprised that that combination is affordable in Berlin. Not like that is a small city or anything. How can you possibly find that much space at an affordable price?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - shados 8y ago
        I don't know about the differences between Berlin and the US beyond cursory knowledge. But from having bought a place in a high demand area recently, the thing is always "who are you competing with". When the average person with 2 kids and a dog are looking at the same houses in the same places as the other family with 2 kids and a dog, there will be differences, but overall it won't be too bad. The problem start when that family wants the exact same house/condo/whatever as the 2 highly paid software engineer with no kids. Then you're screwed: you're competing on a different level. And there's starting to be a lot of people with high dual income and no kid. The US is generally a nation of divide between the haves and the have nots, but the cultural divide is making things waaaaay worse.
      - T2_t2 8y ago
and0 8y ago
There's no way a single software dev in the States could live that close to work, in a nice part of a major city, and also be able to afford space to house and take care of two kids. So his story seems pretty relevant. Besides, if you're going to do software dev you typically need to be in a city to have options, so the squeeze factor is still there. I can attest to this as well; I'd much rather take the lower rent and live further out. I never even do anything in the city.
- vostok 8y ago
  Perhaps an average developer couldn't as the average is around $100k, but a realistically high earning one could. Consider someone who is a staff/senior staff/principal engineer at one of the usual places or someone who went through a nice exit. Forgive me if I read your comment too literally. I think that's generally the conclusion that I come to: I'm very happy being realistically rich in America, but I'd much rather be in Europe if my financial situation were average for a software developer.
  - robotrout 8y ago
    $100K is a lot of money if you're not in the bay area or Seattle. People have such warped perspectives.
    - vostok 8y ago
      I intentionally used the literal average. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/... I am not arguing that this is or isn't a lot of money. For the record, I think that it is a lot of money. It's just not enough money to live OP's lifestyle in the US.
      - robotrout 8y ago
        It's not enough money to live OP's lifestyle in the bay area. SLC was given as just one example of a city where it is.

>We could have moved to the suburbs, but we really hate car culture and wanted to live in a biking city. Oh, so it is totally possible. But not if you want to live in a big city. K.

chrisabrams 8y ago

There are plenty of cities in the US where this is possible but they may not be as desireable. Europe has a couple thousand years advantage on the US in offering cities vs suburbs.

vostok 8y ago

I feel like every statement of that form has an implied "with the lifestyle that I want". If you remove that constraint then it's always possible for a software engineer because they make more than average and that average person does live somehow.

bilbo0s 8y ago
Yep. Invoking Reductio Ad Absurdum, there's always a place for us in the ghetto too, the only question is do we want to live there?
- jklinger410 8y ago
  The word can't is used in the title.
- nsxwolf 8y ago
  Suburbs are perfectly reasonable places to live. You just have to get over yourself a little bit and buy a car.
  - vostok 8y ago
    I know you're responding to a different comment, but I want to clarify that I am not claiming that suburbs are unreasonable places to live. OP said that they didn't want to live in a suburb, which is a reasonable view to have. I don't want to live in one either.
  - gascan 8y ago
    Right, so instead of simply moving to the place where they can have the lifestyle they want, they should suck it up and buy a car like good Americans.
    - rootusrootus 8y ago
      I think he/she was responding to the post that compared suburbs to ghettos. That's no more useful than me saying the same thing about living in a big city. Suburbs and city can both have perfectly good quality-of-life, regardless of preference, neither is a ghetto.
  - francisofascii 8y ago
    That doesn't make much sense. A bike oriented life should be the more affordable, more attainable lifestyle than the car lifestyle.
    - CompelTechnic 8y ago
      High rents in a bikeable city center can wipe out the savings you get from not owning a car. My car-related expenses per month for two commuting drivers are $100 insurance, $150 in gas, and maybe $100 depreciation and maintenance. My cars are old and are not a fashion statement by any means. I would have to pay much more than $350 to get the same amount of house near city center. I would also sacrifice the ability to conveniently go long distances.
      - francisofascii 8y ago
        I guess that is my point. How backwards is it that living without a car in a small apartment is MORE expensive than living with multiple cars in a large house.
        closeparen 8y ago
        Not at all. Cars are technology; land is land. Our society is highly optimized to promote the availability of ever-cheaper, ever-better technology, and also to make sure that real estate assets continuously appreciate.
    - closeparen 8y ago
      We should certainly expect a lifestyle based around consumer goods mass-produced under mature and technologically advanced industrial capitalism to be cheaper (and get cheaper over time) relative to a lifestyle based on around living on the most central, premium land.
stephengillie 8y ago
> I feel like every statement of that form has an implied "with the lifestyle that I want". The perspective confuses me - isn't "having kids" the lifestyle that they want? If that is the priority, then other aspects of life must be flexible to accommodate.
- vostok 8y ago
  I guess I thought that their preferences were * Have space for two children, presumably with separate bedrooms. Potentially even more than one bathroom in the apartment. * Live in a nice, urban area. * Bike 15 minutes to work. They are able to afford this in Berlin, but probably would't be able to do the same in the US.
  - fhood 8y ago
    I am genuinely surprised that that combination is affordable in Berlin. Not like that is a small city or anything. How can you possibly find that much space at an affordable price?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - shados 8y ago
      I don't know about the differences between Berlin and the US beyond cursory knowledge. But from having bought a place in a high demand area recently, the thing is always "who are you competing with". When the average person with 2 kids and a dog are looking at the same houses in the same places as the other family with 2 kids and a dog, there will be differences, but overall it won't be too bad. The problem start when that family wants the exact same house/condo/whatever as the 2 highly paid software engineer with no kids. Then you're screwed: you're competing on a different level. And there's starting to be a lot of people with high dual income and no kid. The US is generally a nation of divide between the haves and the have nots, but the cultural divide is making things waaaaay worse.
    - T2_t2 8y ago

and0 8y ago

There's no way a single software dev in the States could live that close to work, in a nice part of a major city, and also be able to afford space to house and take care of two kids. So his story seems pretty relevant. Besides, if you're going to do software dev you typically need to be in a city to have options, so the squeeze factor is still there. I can attest to this as well; I'd much rather take the lower rent and live further out. I never even do anything in the city.

vostok 8y ago
Perhaps an average developer couldn't as the average is around $100k, but a realistically high earning one could. Consider someone who is a staff/senior staff/principal engineer at one of the usual places or someone who went through a nice exit. Forgive me if I read your comment too literally. I think that's generally the conclusion that I come to: I'm very happy being realistically rich in America, but I'd much rather be in Europe if my financial situation were average for a software developer.
- robotrout 8y ago
  $100K is a lot of money if you're not in the bay area or Seattle. People have such warped perspectives.
  - vostok 8y ago
    I intentionally used the literal average. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/... I am not arguing that this is or isn't a lot of money. For the record, I think that it is a lot of money. It's just not enough money to live OP's lifestyle in the US.
    - robotrout 8y ago
      It's not enough money to live OP's lifestyle in the bay area. SLC was given as just one example of a city where it is.