4 ms·

>I think a lot of people would actually be better off starting life with nothing and living somewhere cheap rather than starting with -$50,000+ and a huge rent

by lsc 8y ago

>I think a lot of people would actually be better off starting life with nothing and living somewhere cheap rather than starting with -$50,000+ and a huge rent bill every month. After all, we have the internet. But too many people don't discover this until it's too late, and they are shackled with a lifetime of obligations. I mean, sure, if it's likely you are going to spend your life making very little money, then sure, avoiding debt at the outset should be paramount. But getting some education, for most people, is probably the strongest thing they can do to decrease the chances that they will spend their life making very little money. I would argue that the next biggest thing you can do is to surround yourself with people who are going the direction you want to go. I think the social and personal development sides of a metropolis are also pretty great. If I want to, (and I do) I can spend all day around people who are smarter than I am. I mean, substitute in your own figure of merit; no matter what you value, if you are in a dense area, chances are, you can find a group of people you can surround yourself with who have a lot of it. This isn't just because of the migration of people who are financially able into the cities... this is also because there are more people of any type that are within your reach; there's a much larger and more diverse pool of people from which to pick your friends. If you are the average of the three people you spend the most time with? you want to be in a dense area where you can choose three really amazing people. My own impresison, as someone who makes a good living without a degree, is that where you live actually matters a lot more if you don't have a degree; the difference in sysadmin jobs between silicon valley and less dense places is absolutely huge; much greater than the difference, say, in doctor jobs or even software engineer jobs.

hoaw 8y ago
I don't disagree with you, that is why people make those choices. But from a larger perspective it doesn't make any sense. Essentially everyone is in agreement that there are in theory more access and less barriers than ever. With that in mind it is completely ridiculous to spend twenty or thirty years working for security. With more opportunities you need more access to security, not less, so people can pursue those opportunities.
- lsc 8y ago
  If you mean financial security, I think most Americans think you will work harder without financial security. It's just not a thing that most americans (at least once you factor in our privileging of rural votes) want our government to facilitate. I mean, I personally think education is a great investment opportunity for the government; it's like those schools that give you an education and then take a bit of your income for a while, right? it seems like good free education would more than pay for itself. But most people (or, at least most voting power) seem to disagree with me.
  - hoaw 8y ago
    > If you mean financial security, I think most Americans think you will work harder without financial security. I have no idea what people are thinking, if they are at all. Work primarily matters when there are no opportunities. Zuckerberg isn't the hardest worker of his generation. He found one of the best opportunities.
CalRobert 8y ago
That's very true - and something I adore about cities. I actually think if humanity is to survive with anything like current population levels we need as many people as possible in cities, given their efficiency and low per-capita carbon emissions. Also, they're fun. But they're too damned expensive, and that's a manufactured situation. We intentionally decided that home prices rising faster than inflation is a good thing, and now we get the occasional lip service to "let's make housing more affordable" but _nobody_ has the guts to say "let's make housing CHEAP. Because basic shelter free of indentured servitude is good for humanity". Instead you get "well this building will have 100 market-rate units and 10 affordable ones so we get the odd token normie to assuage the guilt of everyone else living there. But you still get to vote against any meaningful increase in housing supply that addresses the core problem of 1000 people trying to fit in 100 homes." So, if you make a lot of money, the city is great. If you don't make a lot of money, the city _would_ be great if you could actually afford to live there.
- lsc 8y ago
  There are efforts to build more. search for Scott Weiner if you are in California, and 'yimby' is another keyword. My personal opinion is that if you want to get approval to build an office building, part of that approval would be talking someone into building a similar number of housing units nearby. I mean, not that they should be owned by the same entity; most of us don't want our housing directly contingent on our employment, but you need to build offices and housing in sync, otherwise you get crazy traffic problems.
- lsc 8y ago
  >So, if you make a lot of money, the city is great. If you don't make a lot of money, the city _would_ be great if you could actually afford to live there. I do think that there is a chicken and egg problem here, and it's part of why we think it's so important to keep poor people in their houses as the place gentrifies; A poor person growing up in a rich city has massively more economic mobility than they'd have growing up in a small town. Of course, you are right that it's hard to be poor in a big city; but if you can snag a rent controlled room, or your aunt's couch or whatever, it can be a good leg up.

by lsc 8y ago

hoaw 8y ago

I don't disagree with you, that is why people make those choices. But from a larger perspective it doesn't make any sense. Essentially everyone is in agreement that there are in theory more access and less barriers than ever. With that in mind it is completely ridiculous to spend twenty or thirty years working for security. With more opportunities you need more access to security, not less, so people can pursue those opportunities.

lsc 8y ago
If you mean financial security, I think most Americans think you will work harder without financial security. It's just not a thing that most americans (at least once you factor in our privileging of rural votes) want our government to facilitate. I mean, I personally think education is a great investment opportunity for the government; it's like those schools that give you an education and then take a bit of your income for a while, right? it seems like good free education would more than pay for itself. But most people (or, at least most voting power) seem to disagree with me.
- hoaw 8y ago
  > If you mean financial security, I think most Americans think you will work harder without financial security. I have no idea what people are thinking, if they are at all. Work primarily matters when there are no opportunities. Zuckerberg isn't the hardest worker of his generation. He found one of the best opportunities.

CalRobert 8y ago

That's very true - and something I adore about cities. I actually think if humanity is to survive with anything like current population levels we need as many people as possible in cities, given their efficiency and low per-capita carbon emissions. Also, they're fun. But they're too damned expensive, and that's a manufactured situation. We intentionally decided that home prices rising faster than inflation is a good thing, and now we get the occasional lip service to "let's make housing more affordable" but _nobody_ has the guts to say "let's make housing CHEAP. Because basic shelter free of indentured servitude is good for humanity". Instead you get "well this building will have 100 market-rate units and 10 affordable ones so we get the odd token normie to assuage the guilt of everyone else living there. But you still get to vote against any meaningful increase in housing supply that addresses the core problem of 1000 people trying to fit in 100 homes." So, if you make a lot of money, the city is great. If you don't make a lot of money, the city _would_ be great if you could actually afford to live there.

lsc 8y ago
There are efforts to build more. search for Scott Weiner if you are in California, and 'yimby' is another keyword. My personal opinion is that if you want to get approval to build an office building, part of that approval would be talking someone into building a similar number of housing units nearby. I mean, not that they should be owned by the same entity; most of us don't want our housing directly contingent on our employment, but you need to build offices and housing in sync, otherwise you get crazy traffic problems.
lsc 8y ago
>So, if you make a lot of money, the city is great. If you don't make a lot of money, the city _would_ be great if you could actually afford to live there. I do think that there is a chicken and egg problem here, and it's part of why we think it's so important to keep poor people in their houses as the place gentrifies; A poor person growing up in a rich city has massively more economic mobility than they'd have growing up in a small town. Of course, you are right that it's hard to be poor in a big city; but if you can snag a rent controlled room, or your aunt's couch or whatever, it can be a good leg up.